Cases

Stephens, J. ¶52 (dissenting) — This case turns on whether the parties’ indemnity provision clearly and unequivocally required First Transit to indemnify against losses caused by Community Transit’s negligence. The majority holds it does, relying on decisions from other jurisdictions. Whatever the rule may be in other jurisdictions, this court has held that indemnity provisions covering losses that result from the indemni

Leach, C.J. ¶1 Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1576, International Association of Machinists and Aero*569space Workers District 160, and Lance Norton (collectively Amalgamated) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area, d/b/a Community Transit. Amalgamated seeks a judgment declaring a provision of Com

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR This matter was tried to the Court from May 8, 2017 to May 12, 2017. The claims presented were whether Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiffs disability, failed to afford her protected medical leave, and impermissibly fired her because of her disability. After bench trial and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), the C

506 F.3d 1145 (2007) PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, Petitioner, The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC); Portland General Electric Company, Intervenors, v. BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, Respondent, Avista Corporation; Idaho Power Company; PacifiCorp; Portland General Electric Company and Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Applicant-Intervenor. Canby Utility Board, Petitioner, Public

González, J. ¶1 Ten years ago, King County urgently needed a new facility to treat sewage because existing treatment plants were near capacity. Procuring a location for a new sewage treatment plant was very difficult. After many years of negotiation and seven separate lawsuits, Snohomish County agreed to let King County build the Brightwater sewage treatment plant in south Snohomish County. As part of the settlement, King County

200 P.3d 739 (2009) STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Beverly Ann WAGNER-BENNETT, Appellant. No. 60828-2-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. February 2, 2009. *740 Casey Grannis, Nielsen Broman & Koch, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant. Seth Aaron Fine, Attorney at Law, Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office,

González, J. ¶1 Rival hospice organizations challenge the Washington State Department of Health’s decision (ap*366proved by a health law judge) to grant a certificate of need to Odyssey in connection with settling a federal lawsuit. The King County Superior Court revoked the certificate and remanded. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated Odyssey’s certificate of ne

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 02-2-06846-2, Charles S. French, J., entered May 7, 2002. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 98-1-01521-1, Anita Louise Farris, J., entered August 31, 1999. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

940 P.2d 299 (1997) 87 Wash.App. 73 STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Daun Leon BENNETT, Appellant. No. 37880-5-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. July 21, 1997. *300 Kelly Curtin, Nielsen, Broman & Assoc., Seattle, Stephen Traylor, Seattle, for Appellant. Seth Fine, Breck Marsh, S

408 F.3d 638 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF NORTHWEST UTILITIES; Benton Rural Electric Association; Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association; Umatilla Electric; Eastern Oregon Irrigators Association, Petitioners,Puget Sound Energy; Avista Corporation; Pacific Northwest Generating Company (PNGC); Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, Petitioner-Intervenor,v.BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, Respondent,Pacificorp;

29 Wn. App. 753 (1981) 631 P.2d 3 DAVID BENNETT, ET AL, Appellants, v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF BENTON COUNTY, ET AL, Respondents. Nos. 2807-1-III; 4103-4-III. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three. July 2, 1981. Rembert Ryals and Critchlow & Williams, for appellants. Curtis Ludwig, Prosecuting Attorney,

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: This case arises from a zoning decision, under the Washington Growth Management Act of 1990, to maintain the existing boundary between a residential area and a neighborhood business zone in King County, .Washington. Landowners Bruce and Linda Buckles and Alvin Banks appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of members of the Growth Management Hearings Board and King County. As a thr

275 P.3d 1141 (2012) 167 Wn. App. 740 KING COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2, d/b/a Evergreen Healthcare, a Washington public Hospital district; Swedish Health Services, d/b/a Swedish Visiting Nurse Services, a Washington non-profit corporation; Providence Hospice and Home Care of Snohomish County, a Washington non-profit corporation; and Hospice of Seattle, a Washington non-profit corporation, Respondents, v. WASHINGT

991 P.2d 1161 (2000) 139 Wash.2d 840 CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1, d/b/a Clark Public Utilities, Petitioner, v. Jane R. WILKINSON, Labor Arbitrator, Defendant, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 125, Respondent. No. 67533-3. Supreme Court of Washington. Argued September 16, 1999. Decided February 3,

Ireland, J. (dissenting) — New would disagree that working men and women deserve a timely and certain resolution of employment disputes so that they as breadwinners can put food on the tables of their families without interruption. The majority, by use of the archaic doctrine of laches, permits the employer to dawdle in pursuing its appeal rights, while the employees are left to guess when their action might be concluded.

862 P.2d 428 (1993) 116 N.M.App. 320 JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF RIO ARRIBA, State of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee. Natividad Q. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, Cecilia R. Valdez, Guadalupe B. Garcia, Harold I. Romero, Ed Duda, Emilio Naranjo and John Doe I, John Doe II, and John Doe III, Defenda

NETERER, District Judge. The complainant alleges, in substance, that it is a municipal corporation, having its principal office in the city of Everett; that the defendant Pearson is the treasurer of Snohomish county; that the issue tendered is one of common interest to more than 1,000 districts in the state, and of particular interest to 78 school districts, in addition to plaintiff, within the county of Snohomish; that by act o

955 F.2d 1268 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,507CLASS PLAINTIFFS; Chemical Bank, in its representativecapacity as Trustee for Bondholders, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.CITY OF SEATTLE; Public Utility District No. 1 of FerryCounty, Washington; Public Utility District No. 1 ofKittitas County, Washington; Oregon Public Entities, BentonRural Electric Association, Washington; Small UtilitiesGroup, Alder Mutual Light Company; Cit

16 Wn. App. 709 (1977) 558 P.2d 821 ARTHUR FORD, ET AL, Appellants, v. BELLINGHAM-WHATCOM COUNTY DISTRICT BOARD OF HEALTH, ET AL, Respondents. No. 3489-1. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. January 10, 1977. DeGarmo, Leedy, Oles & Morrison and David C. Stewart, for appellants. Robert B. Sherwood,