exercise privilege in Washington

2012State v. Meyers, 85 Idaho 129 , 376 P.2d 710 (1962).

2012State v. Meyers, 85 Idaho 129 , 376 P.2d 710 (1962).

2002Bruce, 113 Wn.2d at 126 ; see also Twelker v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 88 Wn.2d 473, 475-76 , 564 P.2d 1131 (1977) (“ ‘The witness is subject to the control of the trial judge in the exercise of the privilege.

2002NOTES [1] MSBP is "a form of child maltreatment or abuse inflicted by a caretaker (usually the mother) with fabrications of symptoms and/or induction of signs of disease, leading to unnecessary investigations and interventions, with occasional serious health consequences, including death of the child." STEADMAN'S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 1736 (26th ed.1995). [2] Bruce, 113 Wash.2d at 126 , 776 P.2d 666 ; see also Twelker v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 88 Wash.2d 473, 475-76 , 564 P.2d 1131 (1977) ("The witness is subject to the control of the trial judge in the exercise of the privilege.

2001Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 314-15 , 120 S.Ct. 774 .

2001Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 314-15 .

1941“It is not to be doubted that the power to preserve fish and game within its borders is inherent in the sovereignty of the State (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519 ; Ward v. Racehorse, 163 U. S. 504, 507 ), subject of course to any valid exercise of authority under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

1921“It is not to be doubted that the power to preserve fish and game within its borders is inherent in the sovereignty of the state (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519 ; Ward v. Racehorse, 163 U. S. 504, 507 ), subject of course to any valid exercise of authority under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

1941“It is not to be doubted that the power to preserve fish and game within its borders is inherent in the sovereignty of the State (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519 ; Ward v. Racehorse, 163 U. S. 504, 507 ), subject of course to any valid exercise of authority under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

1921“It is not to be doubted that the power to preserve fish and game within its borders is inherent in the sovereignty of the state (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519 ; Ward v. Racehorse, 163 U. S. 504, 507 ), subject of course to any valid exercise of authority under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

2024With regard to the frivolousness requirement of RCW 4.84.185, “[a]n action must be frivolous in its entirety.” Ahmad, 178 Wn.

2019Resolving this dispute informs whether Ecology acted within its rule making authority when it enacted the Rule. 10 No. 51439-7-II The goal of statutory interpretation “is to ascertain and carry out the legislature’s intent.” Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 762 , 317 P.3d 1003 (2014).

2019Resolving this dispute informs whether Ecology acted within its rule making authority when it enacted the Rule. 10 No. 51439-7-II The goal of statutory interpretation “is to ascertain and carry out the legislature’s intent.” Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 762 , 317 P.3d 1003 (2014).

2017The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 9 of the Washington Constitution protect individuals from providing compelled testimony 1 In re Det. of Brown, 154 Wn.

2014Fire, 145 Wn.2d at 162 -63.

1999Jensen, 185 Wash. at 218 .

1996In Dutil v. State, 93 Wn.2d 84, 90 , 606 P.2d 269 (1980), the Supreme Court explained: Studies which the petitioners have called to our attention *402 indicate that juveniles often do not understand the full import of the exercise or waiver of their constitutional rights.

1996In Dutil v. State, 93 Wn.2d 84, 90 , 606 P.2d 269 (1980), the Supreme Court explained: Studies which the petitioners have called to our attention *402 indicate that juveniles often do not understand the full import of the exercise or waiver of their constitutional rights.

1995Post, 118 Wn.2d at 609 . "[T]he 'penalty’ exception is available only if (1) the person gives answers that would incriminate him or her in a separate criminal proceeding and (2) the State makes express or implied assertions that exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege will result in the imposition of a penalty, be it economic loss or deprivation of liberty.” Post, 118 Wn.2d at 610 (citing Murphy, 465 U.S. at 434-35 ).

1995Post, 118 Wn.2d at 609 . "[T]he 'penalty’ exception is available only if (1) the person gives answers that would incriminate him or her in a separate criminal proceeding and (2) the State makes express or implied assertions that exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege will result in the imposition of a penalty, be it economic loss or deprivation of liberty.” Post, 118 Wn.2d at 610 (citing Murphy, 465 U.S. at 434-35 ).

1995Post, 118 Wn.2d at 609 . "[T]he 'penalty’ exception is available only if (1) the person gives answers that would incriminate him or her in a separate criminal proceeding and (2) the State makes express or implied assertions that exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege will result in the imposition of a penalty, be it economic loss or deprivation of liberty.” Post, 118 Wn.2d at 610 (citing Murphy, 465 U.S. at 434-35 ).

1986Besides being somewhat modified by more contemporary cases (see, e.g., P. Lorillard Co. v. Seattle, 83 Wn.2d 586 , 521 P.2d 208 (1974); Cary v. Bellingham, 41 Wn.2d 468 , 250 P.2d 114 (1952)), this court also stated in Jensen that when a tax is levied for the exercise of a privilege granted or permitted by the State, it may be considered an excise tax.

1986Besides being somewhat modified by more contemporary cases (see, e.g., P. Lorillard Co. v. Seattle, 83 Wn.2d 586 , 521 P.2d 208 (1974); Cary v. Bellingham, 41 Wn.2d 468 , 250 P.2d 114 (1952)), this court also stated in Jensen that when a tax is levied for the exercise of a privilege granted or permitted by the State, it may be considered an excise tax.

1986Besides being somewhat modified by more contemporary cases (see, e.g., P. Lorillard Co. v. Seattle, 83 Wn.2d 586 , 521 P.2d 208 (1974); Cary v. Bellingham, 41 Wn.2d 468 , 250 P.2d 114 (1952)), this court also stated in Jensen that when a tax is levied for the exercise of a privilege granted or permitted by the State, it may be considered an excise tax.

1986Besides being somewhat modified by more contemporary cases (see, e.g., P. Lorillard Co. v. Seattle, 83 Wn.2d 586 , 521 P.2d 208 (1974); Cary v. Bellingham, 41 Wn.2d 468 , 250 P.2d 114 (1952)), this court also stated in Jensen that when a tax is levied for the exercise of a privilege granted or permitted by the State, it may be considered an excise tax.

1977In Murray v. Odman, 1 Wn.2d 481, 486-87 , 96 P.2d 489 (1939), the court said: It is the generally accepted rule that a covenant for the extension of the term of a lease, at the option of the lessee, operates, upon the exercise of the privilege, as a present demise for the full term to which it may be extended, and not as a demise merely for the shorter period with the privilege of a new lease for the extended term. . . .

1977In Murray v. Odman, 1 Wn.2d 481, 486-87 , 96 P.2d 489 (1939), the court said: It is the generally accepted rule that a covenant for the extension of the term of a lease, at the option of the lessee, operates, upon the exercise of the privilege, as a present demise for the full term to which it may be extended, and not as a demise merely for the shorter period with the privilege of a new lease for the extended term. . . .

1976State v. Holmes, 110 Ariz. 494 , 520 P.2d 1118 (1974); State v. Anderson, 110 Ariz. 238 , 517 P.2d 508 (1973).

1976State v. Holmes, 110 Ariz. 494 , 520 P.2d 1118 (1974); State v. Anderson, 110 Ariz. 238 , 517 P.2d 508 (1973).

1976State v. Holmes, 110 Ariz. 494 , 520 P.2d 1118 (1974); State v. Anderson, 110 Ariz. 238 , 517 P.2d 508 (1973).

1976State v. Holmes, 110 Ariz. 494 , 520 P.2d 1118 (1974); State v. Anderson, 110 Ariz. 238 , 517 P.2d 508 (1973).

1976Comment upon the exercise of a privilege has been held improper, justifying a new trial, in Sumpter v. National Grocery Co., 194 Wash. 598 , 78 P.2d 1087 , 116 A.L.R. 1166 (1938), and in Kiehlhoefer v. Washington Water Power Co., 49 Wash. 646 , 96 P. 220 (1908).

1976Comment upon the exercise of a privilege has been held improper, justifying a new trial, in Sumpter v. National Grocery Co., 194 Wash. 598 , 78 P.2d 1087 , 116 A.L.R. 1166 (1938), and in Kiehlhoefer v. Washington Water Power Co., 49 Wash. 646 , 96 P. 220 (1908).

1976Comment upon the exercise of a privilege has been held improper, justifying a new trial, in Sumpter v. National Grocery Co., 194 Wash. 598 , 78 P.2d 1087 , 116 A.L.R. 1166 (1938), and in Kiehlhoefer v. Washington Water Power Co., 49 Wash. 646 , 96 P. 220 (1908).

1976Comment upon the exercise of a privilege has been held improper, justifying a new trial, in Sumpter v. National Grocery Co., 194 Wash. 598 , 78 P.2d 1087 , 116 A.L.R. 1166 (1938), and in Kiehlhoefer v. Washington Water Power Co., 49 Wash. 646 , 96 P. 220 (1908).

1963They were systematic and continuous throughout the years in question. ...” In Traveler’s Health Ass’n v. Virginia, supra, the Supreme Court, in determining the right of the forum state to regulate through a regulatory body the activities of a foreign insurance corporation which solicited business in the forum state through the medium of its policyholders, stated (p. 648): “Measured by the principles of the Osborn [Osborn v. Ozlin, 310 U. S. 53 , 84 L.

1963They were systematic and continuous throughout the years in question. ...” In Traveler’s Health Ass’n v. Virginia, supra, the Supreme Court, in determining the right of the forum state to regulate through a regulatory body the activities of a foreign insurance corporation which solicited business in the forum state through the medium of its policyholders, stated (p. 648): “Measured by the principles of the Osborn [Osborn v. Ozlin, 310 U. S. 53 , 84 L.

1952The holding referred to is this: "The law properly gives to the public press encouragement to voice its criticism of the conduct of public officials; but, in the exercise of such privilege, a publication which imputes to them misconduct in office, want of official integrity or fidelity to public trust, if false, is a violation of that privilege and gives rise to an action for damages." Gaffney v. Scott Publishing Co., 35 Wn. (2d) 272, 276, 212 P. (2d) 817 .

1952The holding referred to is this: “The law properly gives to the public press encouragement to voice its criticism of the conduct of public officials; but, in the exercise of such privilege, a publication which imputes to them misconduct in office, want of official integrity or fidelity to public trust, if false, is a violation of that privilege and gives rise to an action for damages.” Gaffney v. Scott Publishing Co., 35 Wn. (2d) 272, 276, 212 P. (2d) 817 .

1949Co., 85 Wash. 503 , 148 Pac. 774 ; Miles v. Wasmer, Inc., 172 Wash. 466 , 20 P. (2d) 847 ; Ziebell v. Lumbermens Printing Co., supra. The law properly gives to the public press encouragement to voice its criticism of the conduct of public officials; but, in the exercise of such privilege, a publication which imputes to them misconduct in office, want of official integrity or fidelity to public trust, if false, is a violation of that *277 privilege and gives rise to an action for damages.

1949Co., 85 Wash. 503 , 148 Pac. 774 ; Miles v. Wasmer, Inc., 172 Wash. 466 , 20 P. (2d) 847 ; Ziebell v. Lumbermens Printing Co., supra. The law properly gives to the public press encouragement to voice its criticism of the conduct of public officials; but, in the exercise of such privilege, a publication which imputes to them misconduct in office, want of official integrity or fidelity to public trust, if false, is a violation of that *277 privilege and gives rise to an action for damages.

1949Byrne v. Funk, 38 Wash. 506 , 80 Pac. 772 ; Quinn v. Review Pub.

1949Byrne v. Funk, 38 Wash. 506 , 80 Pac. 772 ; Quinn v. Review Pub.