87 Wash. 2d
Volume 87 — Washington Reports, Second Series
99 opinions
- 87 Wash. 2d 1Twin Lakes Golf & Country Club v. King County (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 6Highline School District No. 401 v. Port of Seattle (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 19Lewis v. City of Medina (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 25Dominick v. Christensen (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 28Haines v. Anaconda Aluminum Co. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 35Simpson Timber Co. v. Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 42Timber Traders, Inc. v. Johnston (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 50Doe v. Dunning (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 56Boyce v. Adams (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 62Kubista v. Romaine (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 70Farmers Insurance v. Miller (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 77In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Nelson (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 85Fenimore v. Donald M. Drake Construction Co. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 97Riggins v. Housing Authority (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 103State v. Kent (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 112State v. Salinas (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 129State v. Young (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 139State v. Parmele (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 145Haddenham v. State (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 154Barendregt v. Walla Walla School District No. 140 (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 161State v. Osborn (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 175State v. Burri (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 184Beckett v. Department of Social & Health Services (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 195Garrison v. Washington State Nursing Board (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 198West v. Zeibell (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 203Ledesma v. A. F. Murch Co. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 206State v. Durham (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 212State v. Hultenschmidt (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 217Grobe v. Valley Garbage Service, Inc. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 232In Re the Salary of the Juvenile Director (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 253City of Seattle v. Crockett (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 258Jansen v. Morris (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 267Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Ass'n v. King County Council (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 280Hayes v. Yount (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 298State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 327State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 338Cheney v. City of Mountlake Terrace (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 348Swift v. Island County (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 363State v. Newton (1976)
<bold>[1] Courts — Rules of Court — Construction — Similar Federal</bold> <bold>Rule.</bold> Federal court decisions interpreting a federal court rule on which a state court rule is based may be used in construing the state rule. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Factual Basis —</bold> <bold>Determination — Matters Considered.</bold> In making a determination under CrR 4.2(d) as to whether there is a factual basis for a defendant's guilty plea, a court may consider any reliable source which is made part of the record, including the prosecutor's recital of evidence he would offer at trial, signed statements of state witnesses, and the presentence report. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Factual Basis —</bold> <bold>Determination — Standard.</bold> A trial court need not be convinced of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find a factual basis for his guilty plea, as required by CrR 4.2(d), but rather need only find that the evidence is such that a jury might reach that conclusion.<page_number>Page 364</page_number> <bold>[4] Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Factual Basis — Finding —</bold> <bold>Necessity.</bold> CrR 4.2(d) does not require a trial court to enter a specific finding that there is a factual basis for a defendant's guilty plea. <bold>[5] Criminal Law — Plea of Guilty — Factual Basis — Admission of</bold> <bold>Guilt — Necessity.</bold> A trial court may properly receive a criminal defendant's guilty plea even though the defendant denies his guilt, or refuses to make an admission of guilt, when the factual basis required by CrR 4.2(d) is provided by other reliable evidence and the plea constitutes the defendant's voluntary, understanding, and competent choice among the alternatives available to him. Such an admission is not mandated by either due process requirements or by the provision within CrR 4.2(g) (13) for a statement by the defendant regarding his actions which led to the charge.
- 87 Wash. 2d 374State v. Arndt (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 393State v. Alcantara (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 400Peters v. Simmons (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 406Bernal v. American Honda Motor Co. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 417Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n v. Tollefson (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 424Hunsley v. Giard (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 437Bellingham First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Garrison (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 443State v. Walker (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 447State v. Boast (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 457City of Spokane v. Spokane Police Guild (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 467State v. Jack (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 470Frederickson v. Becker (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 478Brownlee v. Clark (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 483Carter v. University of Washington (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 487Macomber v. Department of Employment Security (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 501Wood v. Morris (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 516Rasor v. Retail Credit Co. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 536King County Water District No. 54 v. King County Boundary Review Board (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 550Latham v. Hennessey (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 556State v. Atteberry (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 562State v. Jackson (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 567Klos v. Gockel (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 572City of Everett v. Fire Fighters, Local No. 350 of the International Ass'n of Fire Fighters (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 577Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 584Berg v. General Motors Corp. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 598Diedrick v. School District No. 81 (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 612State v. Cummings (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 618Silver Shores Mobile Home Park, Inc. v. City of Everett (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 626State Ex Rel. Public Disclosure Commission v. Rains (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 636Williams v. Poulsbo Rural Telephone Ass'n (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 649In Re Adoption of Buehl (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 665Robinson v. Peterson (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 686Salstrom's Vehicles, Inc. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 697Vovos v. Grant (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 706Anderson v. Morris (1976)
<bold>[1] Public Assistance — AFDC — Statutory Provisions — Validity —</bold> <bold>Federal Rules.</bold> Any state laws or rules creating a state-administered aid for dependent children program, which is federally funded, are invalid to the extent that they conflict with applicable federal statutes or federal rules and regulations implementing such statutes. <bold>[2] Public Assistance — AFDC — Income — Lump Sum Receipts —</bold> <bold>Income Tax Refund.</bold> For purposes of the federal rule under which only income "actually available for current use on a regular basis" may be considered in determining AFDC eligibility, a lump sum income tax refund is not received on a regular basis. <bold>[3] Public Assistance — AFDC — Income — Statutory Provisions —</bold> <bold>Validity.</bold> The definition of income contained in the public assistance eligibility provisions of RCW <cross_reference>74.04.005</cross_reference>(12) does not require its availability "on a regular basis" as did the prior governing federal regulation relating to AFDC (<cross_reference>45 C.F.R. 233.20</cross_reference>(a)(3)(ii)(c) (1973)) and is invalid to the extent to which it authorizes consideration of income not within the federal standard in determining AFDC eligibility. <bold>[4] Public Assistance — AFDC — Resources — Current Availability</bold> <bold>— Presumption.</bold> The practice of assuming that sums received by an AFDC recipient over which he has control are "currently available" for purposes of their consideration in determining eligibility and need is not improper so long as the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. The State is not required to make a specific factual determination of current availability before it may consider lump sum payments in determining AFDC eligibility. <bold>[5] Public Assistance — AFDC — Resources — Exemptions — Denial</bold> <bold>to Recipients — Validity.</bold> State regulations which permit applicants but not recipients to have certain property excluded from consideration in determining their eligibility for AFDC benefits are inconsistent with the governing federal regulation which authorizes the state to provide for such exemptions (<cross_reference>45 C.F.R. 233.20</cross_reference>(a) (3) (i) (1973)). <bold>[6] Statutes — Validity — Constitutionality — In General.</bold> A statute will be construed in a manner which renders it constitutional whenever possible. <bold>[7] Statutes — Construction — Legislative Intent — Alternative</bold> <bold>Interpretations.</bold> The primary purpose of statutory construction is to give effect to the legislative intent as determined in the context of the entire statute and its general purpose. When alternative interpretations<page_number>Page 707</page_number> are possible, the one which best serves the overall legislative purpose will be adopted. <bold>[8] Public Assistance — AFDC — Resources — Exemptions —</bold> <bold>Statutory Provisions — Effect.</bold> In determining eligibility for AFDC benefits, the resource exemption provisions of RCW <cross_reference>74.04.005</cross_reference>(11) must be construed, in accordance with the applicable federal regulations, as applying to both recipients and applicants notwithstanding the statute's reference to applicants only.
- 87 Wash. 2d 717Ball v. Smith (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 732Housing Authority v. Saylors (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 760State v. Jeske (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 767State v. Morlock (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 772Columbia Basin College Ass'n of Higher Education v. Board of Trustees of Columbia Basin College (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 780Hatfield v. Greco (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 783State v. Wright (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 796Hsu Ying Li v. Tang (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 802Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pacific Railroad v. Washington State Human Rights Commission (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 814State v. Barklind (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 823Washington Federation of State Employees v. Higher Education Personnel Board (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 823STATE EMPLOYEES v. Personnel Bd. (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 829State v. Kroll (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 847Leonard v. City of Bothell (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 855In Re Estate of Olson (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 864Wark v. Washington National Guard (1977)
- 87 Wash. 2d 870State v. Striker (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 878John H. Sellen Construction Co. v. Department of Revenue (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 887Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 v. Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 916State v. Williams (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 922Johnson v. Morris (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 932State v. Lee (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 948Washington Massage Foundation v. Nelson (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 955Neilson v. Vashon Island School District No. 402 (1976)
- 87 Wash. 2d 961Schneider v. Hutt (1976)