direct inquiry in Washington

2024“It is only where a direct inquiry is made by an individual and incorrect information is clearly set forth by the government, the government intends that it be relied upon and it is relied upon by the individual to his detriment, that the government may be bound.” Meaney, 111 Wn.2d at 179 . -29- No. 86162-0-I/30 The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the County on the negligent misrepresentation claim. 5 We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the Newells’ tort claims.

2015Drawing all factual inferences in WVII’s favor, we hold that WVII was a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff. ¶62 The second element requires that “a direct inquiry is made by an individual and incorrect information is clearly set forth by the government, the government intends that it be relied upon and it is relied upon by the individual to his detriment.” Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174, 180 , 759 P.2d 455 (1988).

2011An express assurance occurs "`where a direct inquiry is made by an individual and incorrect information is clearly set forth by the government, the government intends that it be relied upon and it is relied upon by the individual to his detriment.'" Babcock, 144 Wash.2d at 789 , 30 P.3d 1261 (quoting Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wash.2d 174, 180 , 759 P.2d 455 (1988)). ¶ 37 The Fishburns state that Daniel's "numerous contacts" with PALS's personnel, in which they gave him conflicting information, assured him they would work with him, promised him an exemption and expedited permits, then changed their m

2011No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 786 , 30 P.3d 1261 (2001) (quoting Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 785 , 954 P.2d 237 (1998)). “ Tt is only where a direct inquiry is made by an individual and incorrect information is clearly set forth by the government, the government intends that it be relied upon and it is relied upon by the individual to his detriment, that the government may be bound.’ ” Babcock, 144 Wn.2d at 789 (quoting Meaney, 111 Wn.2d at 180 ). ¶13 Trading concedes that it did not receive an express assurance from DOR or OFM.

2001The court overruled J&B Development Co. v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 299 , 669 P.2d 468 (1983) and held that in order to maintain an action based upon negligent issuance of a building permit, a direct inquiry must have been made by the plaintiff and incorrect information clearly set forth by the government.

2001The court overruled J&B Development Co. v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 299 , 669 P.2d 468 (1983) and held that in order to maintain an action based upon negligent issuance of a building permit, a direct inquiry must have been made by the plaintiff and incorrect information clearly set forth by the government.

2013Presumably, all landowners could potentially violate the state’s pollution laws, so when Ecology has not proved a direct violation but still wants to initiate an enforcement action, the key word in the statute is “substantial.” Id.

2013Presumably, all landowners could potentially violate the state's pollution laws, so when Ecology has not proved a direct violation but still wants to initiate an enforcement action, the key word in the statute is "substantial." Id.

2008This she has also failed to do. ¶ 36 Our Supreme Court has consistently held: A government duty cannot arise from implied assurances. " It is only where a direct inquiry is made by an individual and incorrect information is clearly set forth by the government, the government intends that it be relied upon and it is relied upon by the individual to his detriment, that the government may be bound." Babcock, 144 Wash.2d at 789 , 30 P.3d 1261 (quoting Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wash.2d 174, 180 , 759 P.2d 455 (1988)) (emphasis added); see also Honcoop, 111 Wash.2d at 192-93 , 759 P.2d 1188 ; Taylor, 111

2008“It is only where a direct inquiry is made by an individual and incorrect information is clearly set forth by the government, the government intends that it be relied upon and it is relied upon by the individual to his detriment, that the government may be bound.” Babcock, 144 Wn.2d at 789 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted) (quoting Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174, 180 , 759 P.2d 455 (1988)); see also Honcoop, 111 Wn.2d at 192-93 ; Taylor, 111 Wn.2d at 167 .

2001Stoudmire, 141 Wash.2d at 352 , 5 P.3d 1240 .

2001Stoudmire, 141 Wn.2d at 352 .

1998As for the challenge to the instruction itself, we did not overrule any of our prior decisions in LeFaber but, rather, applied the “well-settled” rule that a defendant may claim self-defense based on his “subjective, reasonable belief of imminent harm from the victim.” LeFaber, 128 Wn.2d at 899 .

1998As for the challenge to the instruction itself, we did not overrule any of our prior decisions in LeFaber but, rather, applied the "well-settled" rule that a defendant may claim self-defense based on his "subjective, reasonable belief of imminent harm from the victim." LeFaber, 128 Wash.2d at 899 , 913 P.2d 369 .

1997In State v. Thompson, 95 Wn.2d 888 , 632 P.2d 50 (1981), we upheld the trial court’s admission of prior convictions for manslaughter and an unspecified violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (VUCSA) in the defendant’s trial for second degree assault with a deadly weapon.

1997In State v. Thompson, 95 Wn.2d 888 , 632 P.2d 50 (1981), we upheld the trial court’s admission of prior convictions for manslaughter and an unspecified violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (VUCSA) in the defendant’s trial for second degree assault with a deadly weapon.

2024App. 866, 875 , 791 P.2d 228 (1990) (prosecutor did not breach the agreement when explaining why he did not seek an exceptional sentence in response to a direct inquiry by the court).

2024Id.

2024Sound Infiniti, Inc. v. Snyder, 145 Wn.

2011No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 786 , 30 P.3d 1261 (2001) (quoting Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 785 , 954 P.2d 237 (1998)). “ Tt is only where a direct inquiry is made by an individual and incorrect information is clearly set forth by the government, the government intends that it be relied upon and it is relied upon by the individual to his detriment, that the government may be bound.’ ” Babcock, 144 Wn.2d at 789 (quoting Meaney, 111 Wn.2d at 180 ). ¶13 Trading concedes that it did not receive an express assurance from DOR or OFM.

2011No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 786 , 30 P.3d 1261 (2001) (quoting Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 785 , 954 P.2d 237 (1998)). “ Tt is only where a direct inquiry is made by an individual and incorrect information is clearly set forth by the government, the government intends that it be relied upon and it is relied upon by the individual to his detriment, that the government may be bound.’ ” Babcock, 144 Wn.2d at 789 (quoting Meaney, 111 Wn.2d at 180 ). ¶13 Trading concedes that it did not receive an express assurance from DOR or OFM.

2001Johnson, 131 Wash.2d at 569 , 933 P.2d 1019 . [5] Because RCW 10.73.140 does not apply to this court, the abuse of writ doctrine is the only direct bar to the raising of new issues in successive PRPs in this court.

2001Johnson, 131 Wash.2d at 569 , 933 P.2d 1019 . [5] Because RCW 10.73.140 does not apply to this court, the abuse of writ doctrine is the only direct bar to the raising of new issues in successive PRPs in this court.

2001Stoudmire, 141 Wash.2d at 352 , 5 P.3d 1240 .

2000Id. at 743, 975 P.2d 512 .

1999Appellant Fireman’s Fund’s Br. at 4 n.l. 2 The Parises concede that they do not have standing to bring a direct claim against Puget Sound Escrow’s fidelity bond: By the terms of RCW 18.44.050, which requires an escrow company to obtain a $200,000 fidelity bond, “a company issuing a fidelity bond to an escrow agent is hable only to the escrow agent, and not to third parties, in the event of a loss due to fraudulent or dishonest acts.” Estate of Jordan, 62 Wn.

1993SCHOLFIELD, J. (dissenting) Because I believe the majority opinion allows propensity evidence into the defendant's trial in direct violation of ER 404(b), I respectfully dissent. *338 In May 1990, this court filed its opinion in State v. Lynch, 58 Wn.

1993App. 83 , 792 P.2d 167 , review denied, 115 Wn.2d 1020 (1990).

1990See Lee, at 257-58; Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 , 103 L.

1990See Lee, at 257-58; Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 , 103 L.

1990Ed. 2d 127 , 102 S. Ct. 1051 (1982), we are reluctant to accept all such statements at face value. 8 We note that our conclusion might be different if the counselors’ religious tenets required them to keep confidential all information learned in counseling sessions, because requiring a report in these circumstances could coerce a direct violation of religious tenets. 9 The Supreme Court has not been consistent in its phrasing of this requirement, sometimes stating that the government need show only an "overriding" interest.

1976App. 355 , 517 P.2d 212 (1973), and State v. Anderson, 12 Wn.

1976The testimony demonstrated that there was a direct violation of the holding in Williams in the instant case. • I do not agree with State v. Nixon, 10 Wn.

1976I do not agree with State v. Nixon, 10 Wn.

1975State v. Northwest Magnesite Co., 28 Wn.2d 1, 27 , 182 P.2d 643 (1947).

1975State v. Northwest Magnesite Co., 28 Wn.2d 1, 27 , 182 P.2d 643 (1947).

1949Laws would be sustained or defeated by considerations of present policy rather than by reference to the constitution.” The question and decision in Potter v. Whatcom County, 138 Wash. 571 , 245 Pac. 11 , is explained in the following quotation: “Subsequently, and before the bridge collapsed, the act of 1923, took effect; but it is contended that the proviso which we have quoted and which is relied upon by the township, is unconstitutional because the title of the amendatory act is not broad enough to include the matters covered by the proviso.

1949Laws would be sustained or defeated by considerations of present policy rather than by reference to the constitution.” The question and decision in Potter v. Whatcom County, 138 Wash. 571 , 245 Pac. 11 , is explained in the following quotation: “Subsequently, and before the bridge collapsed, the act of 1923, took effect; but it is contended that the proviso which we have quoted and which is relied upon by the township, is unconstitutional because the title of the amendatory act is not broad enough to include the matters covered by the proviso.

1948Laws would be sustained or defeated by considerations of present policy rather than by reference to the constitution.” In Petroleum Lease Properties Co. v. Huse, 195 Wash. 254 , 80 P. (2d) 774 , we quoted from 1 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (8th ed.) 296, wherein the object of this constitutional limitation was stated to be: “ ‘. . . first to prevent hodge-podge or “log-rolling” legislation; second, to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the titles gave no intimation, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintenti