extensive analysis in Washington

2003The Cockle court held RCW 51.08.178 “expressly expands” the meaning of the term “wages” “to include the ‘reasonable value’ of in-kind work benefits such as ‘board, housing [and] fuel.’ ” Cockle, 142 Wn.2d at 808 .

2003The Cockle court held RCW 51.08.178 "expressly expands" the meaning of the term "wages" "to include the `reasonable value' of in-kind work benefits such as `board, housing [and] fuel.'" Cockle, 142 Wash.2d at 808 , 16 P.3d 583 .

1999Wheaton, 121 Wash.2d at 352-65 , 850 P.2d 507 .

1999Wheaton, 121 Wn.2d at 352-65 .

1999For an extensive analysis of these three schemes, see Keys v. Romley, 64 Cal. 2d 396 , 50 Cal. Rptr. 273 , 412 P.2d 529 (1966).

1999For an extensive analysis of these three schemes, see Keys v. Romley, 64 Cal. 2d 396 , 50 Cal. Rptr. 273 , 412 P.2d 529 (1966).

1998First, the court discussed and extensively quoted from Long v. Smith, 125 Wash. 183 , 215 P. 342 (1923), Kandoll v. Penttila, 18 Wash.2d 434 , 139 P.2d 616 (1943), and Hardin v. Day, 29 Wash. 664 , 70 P. 118 (1902).

1998First, the court discussed and extensively quoted from Long v. Smith, 125 Wash. 183 , 215 P. 342 (1923), Kandoll v. Penttila, 18 Wash.2d 434 , 139 P.2d 616 (1943), and Hardin v. Day, 29 Wash. 664 , 70 P. 118 (1902).

1998First, the court discussed and extensively quoted from Long v. Smith, 125 Wash. 183 , 215 P. 342 (1923), Kandoll v. Penttila, 18 Wash.2d 434 , 139 P.2d 616 (1943), and Hardin v. Day, 29 Wash. 664 , 70 P. 118 (1902).

1998First, the court discussed and extensively quoted from Long v. Smith, 125 Wash. 183 , 215 P. 342 (1923), Kandoll v. Penttila, 18 Wash.2d 434 , 139 P.2d 616 (1943), and Hardin v. Day, 29 Wash. 664 , 70 P. 118 (1902).

1998First, the court discussed and extensively quoted from Long v. Smith, 125 Wash. 183 , 215 P. 342 (1923), Kandoll v. Penttila, 18 Wash.2d 434 , 139 P.2d 616 (1943), and Hardin v. Day, 29 Wash. 664 , 70 P. 118 (1902).

1998First, the court discussed and extensively quoted from Long v. Smith, 125 Wash. 183 , 215 P. 342 (1923), Kandoll v. Penttila, 18 Wash.2d 434 , 139 P.2d 616 (1943), and Hardin v. Day, 29 Wash. 664 , 70 P. 118 (1902).

2021Id. at 49-53 .

2015City of Spokane v. Taxpayers of City of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 91, 102 , 758 P.2d 480 (1988); State v. Stately, 152 Wn.

2015City of Spokane v. Taxpayers of City of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 91, 102 , 758 P.2d 480 (1988); State v. Stately, 152 Wn.

2015City of Spokane v. Taxpayers of City of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 91, 102 , 758 P.2d 480 (1988); State v. Stately, 152 Wn.

2013This two-part argument fails because (1) the record contains no motion to strike the declaration submitted by Duran's counsel and (2) neither Armstrong nor Mosley requested an evidentiary hearing before the trial court entered its finding ofcontempt.8 See Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.. 91 Wn.2d 345, 352 , 588 P.2d 1346 (1979) (failure to bring a motion to strike waives argument that affiant lacked personal knowledge); State v. Hatten, 70 Wn.2d 618, 622 , 425 P.2d 7 (1967) ("If a more extensive hearing than that which is afforded is desired in contempt proceedings, an application for such he

2013This two-part argument fails because (1) the record contains no motion to strike the declaration submitted by Duran's counsel and (2) neither Armstrong nor Mosley requested an evidentiary hearing before the trial court entered its finding ofcontempt.8 See Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.. 91 Wn.2d 345, 352 , 588 P.2d 1346 (1979) (failure to bring a motion to strike waives argument that affiant lacked personal knowledge); State v. Hatten, 70 Wn.2d 618, 622 , 425 P.2d 7 (1967) ("If a more extensive hearing than that which is afforded is desired in contempt proceedings, an application for such he

2003The Cockle court held RCW 51.08.178 "expressly expands" the meaning of the term "wages" "to include the `reasonable value' of in-kind work benefits such as `board, housing [and] fuel.'" Cockle, 142 Wash.2d at 808 , 16 P.3d 583 .

1994Robert A. Radcliffe, Note, When Should the Trier of Fact Determine the Validity of Personal Injury Releases?— Bennett v. Shinoda Floral, Inc., 108 Wash. 2d 386 , 739 P.2d 648 (1987)., 63 Wash. L.

1994Robert A. Radcliffe, Note, When Should the Trier of Fact Determine the Validity of Personal Injury Releases?— Bennett v. Shinoda Floral, Inc., 108 Wash. 2d 386 , 739 P.2d 648 (1987)., 63 Wash. L.

1991McKasson, 55 Wn.

1988See generally People v. Sobiek, 30 Cal. App. 3d 458 , 106 Cal. Rptr. 519 (in an extensive analysis the court reasoned that language in California State Supreme Court opinions to the effect that no crime *784 occurred was dicta; held that theft of partnership funds by a partner could constitute a crime), review denied (Apr. 4, 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855 (1973); People v. Pedersen, 86 Cal. App. 3d 987 , 150 Cal. Rptr. 577 (1978), review denied (Jan. 24, 1979).

1988See generally People v. Sobiek, 30 Cal. App. 3d 458 , 106 Cal. Rptr. 519 (in an extensive analysis the court reasoned that language in California State Supreme Court opinions to the effect that no crime *784 occurred was dicta; held that theft of partnership funds by a partner could constitute a crime), review denied (Apr. 4, 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855 (1973); People v. Pedersen, 86 Cal. App. 3d 987 , 150 Cal. Rptr. 577 (1978), review denied (Jan. 24, 1979).

1988See generally People v. Sobiek, 30 Cal. App. 3d 458 , 106 Cal. Rptr. 519 (in an extensive analysis the court reasoned that language in California State Supreme Court opinions to the effect that no crime *784 occurred was dicta; held that theft of partnership funds by a partner could constitute a crime), review denied (Apr. 4, 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855 (1973); People v. Pedersen, 86 Cal. App. 3d 987 , 150 Cal. Rptr. 577 (1978), review denied (Jan. 24, 1979).

1984Article 1, section 7 of our state constitution provides: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." In State v. Ringer, 100 Wn.2d 686 , 674 P.2d 1240 (1983), our State Supreme Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the historical roots of this constitutional guaranty and concluded that it "poses an almost absolute bar to warrantless arrests, searches, and seizures, with only limited exceptions ..." Ringer , at 690.

1984Article 1, section 7 of our state constitution provides: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." In State v. Ringer, 100 Wn.2d 686 , 674 P.2d 1240 (1983), our State Supreme Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the historical roots of this constitutional guaranty and concluded that it "poses an almost absolute bar to warrantless arrests, searches, and seizures, with only limited exceptions ..." Ringer , at 690.

1971However, subsequent to that hearing, our Supreme Court in State v. Prater, 77 Wn.2d 526 , 463 P.2d 640 (1970) examined this precise question and at page 541 outlined the factors to be considered in such a case as follows: Whether there is such a waiver depends on a number of factors such as the age, intelligence and experience of the juvenile.

1971However, subsequent to that hearing, our Supreme Court in State v. Prater, 77 Wn.2d 526 , 463 P.2d 640 (1970) examined this precise question and at page 541 outlined the factors to be considered in such a case as follows: Whether there is such a waiver depends on a number of factors such as the age, intelligence and experience of the juvenile.

1967State v. Zioncheck, 171 Wash. 388 , 18 P.2d 35 (1933).

1967State v. Zioncheck, 171 Wash. 388 , 18 P.2d 35 (1933).

1962Referring to Douglas Cy. v. Grant Cy., 98 Wash. 355 , 167 Pac. 928 , the court said at page 62: "This decision, the decisions therein cited, and the still later decision in Robinson v. Lewis County, 141 Wash. 642 , 252 Pac. 143 , 256 Pac. 503 , firmly establish the rule in this state that, under our system of limitations, actions to enforce a liability created by statute, other than actions for penalties or forfeitures, fall within Rem.

1962Referring to Douglas Cy. v. Grant Cy., 98 Wash. 355 , 167 Pac. 928 , the court said at page 62: “This decision, the decisions therein cited, and the still later decision in Robinson v. Lewis County, 141 Wash. 642 , 252 Pac. 143 , 256 Pac. 503 , firmly establish the rule in this state that, under our system of limitations, actions to enforce a liability created by statute, other than actions for penalties or forfeitures, fall within Rem.

1962This court in an en banc hearing, Noble v. Martin, 191 Wash. 39 , 70 P. (2d) 1064 , held, after an extensive analysis of the question, that the two-year statute of limitations applied in an action brought upon a liability created by statute.

1962This court in an en banc hearing, Noble v. Martin, 191 Wash. 39 , 70 P. (2d) 1064 , held, after an extensive analysis of the question, that the two-year statute of limitations applied in an action brought upon a liability created by statute.

1962Referring to Douglas Cy. v. Grant Cy., 98 Wash. 355 , 167 Pac. 928 , the court said at page 62: "This decision, the decisions therein cited, and the still later decision in Robinson v. Lewis County, 141 Wash. 642 , 252 Pac. 143 , 256 Pac. 503 , firmly establish the rule in this state that, under our system of limitations, actions to enforce a liability created by statute, other than actions for penalties or forfeitures, fall within Rem.

1962Referring to Douglas Cy. v. Grant Cy., 98 Wash. 355 , 167 Pac. 928 , the court said at page 62: "This decision, the decisions therein cited, and the still later decision in Robinson v. Lewis County, 141 Wash. 642 , 252 Pac. 143 , 256 Pac. 503 , firmly establish the rule in this state that, under our system of limitations, actions to enforce a liability created by statute, other than actions for penalties or forfeitures, fall within Rem.

1962Referring to Douglas Cy. v. Grant Cy., 98 Wash. 355 , 167 Pac. 928 , the court said at page 62: "This decision, the decisions therein cited, and the still later decision in Robinson v. Lewis County, 141 Wash. 642 , 252 Pac. 143 , 256 Pac. 503 , firmly establish the rule in this state that, under our system of limitations, actions to enforce a liability created by statute, other than actions for penalties or forfeitures, fall within Rem.

1962Referring to Douglas Cy. v. Grant Cy., 98 Wash. 355 , 167 Pac. 928 , the court said at page 62: “This decision, the decisions therein cited, and the still later decision in Robinson v. Lewis County, 141 Wash. 642 , 252 Pac. 143 , 256 Pac. 503 , firmly establish the rule in this state that, under our system of limitations, actions to enforce a liability created by statute, other than actions for penalties or forfeitures, fall within Rem.