four part test in Washington

2012The four part test enumerated in'the case of White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)[ 4 ] is the proper test to apply to determine if defendants’ motion should be granted or denied. 6.

2012The four part test enumerated in'the case of White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)[ 4 ] is the proper test to apply to determine if defendants’ motion should be granted or denied. 6.

2019Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 8 . “[W]hen [DOE] determines whether to issue a permit for appropriation of public groundwater, [it] must consider the interrelationship of the groundwater with surface waters, and must determine whether surface water rights would be impaired or affected by groundwater withdrawals.” Postema, 142 Wn.2d at 80-81 .

2016Postema v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 79 , 11 P.3d 726 (2000).

2016Postema v. Pollution Control Hr'qs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 79 , 11 P.3d 726 (2000).

2016Postema v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 79 , 11 P.3d 726 (2000).

2013L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 708 (citing In re Parentage of L.B., 121 Wn.

2013In L.B., we adopted a four part test for establishing de facto parent status: "(1) the natural or legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship, (2) the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household, (3) the petitioner assumed obligations of parenthood without 4 In re Custody ofA.F.J, No. 86188-9 expectation of financial compensation, and (4) the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship, parental in nature." L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 708 (quoting in re Parentage ofL.

2013L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 708 (citing In re Parentage of L.B., 121 Wn.

2013In L.B., we adopted a four part test for establishing de facto parent status: "(1) the natural or legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship, (2) the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household, (3) the petitioner assumed obligations of parenthood without 4 In re Custody ofA.F.J, No. 86188-9 expectation of financial compensation, and (4) the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship, parental in nature." L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 708 (quoting in re Parentage ofL.

2008Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash.2d 58, 64-65 , 993 P.2d 901 (2000). ś86 The certified question concerns the first element of the tort, also called the "clarity" element.

2008Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wn.2d 58, 64-65 , 993 P.2d 901 (2000). ¶86 The certified question concerns the first element of the tort, also called the “clarity” element.

2008Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash.2d 58, 64-65 , 993 P.2d 901 (2000). ś86 The certified question concerns the first element of the tort, also called the "clarity" element.

2008Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wn.2d 58, 64-65 , 993 P.2d 901 (2000). ¶86 The certified question concerns the first element of the tort, also called the “clarity” element.

2007CR 60(b); Dlouhy, 55 Wash.2d 718 , 349 P.2d 1073 . [2] Or, alternately, defendants may set aside a default judgment if they meet the four part test set forth in White : (1) That there is substantial evidence extant to support, at least prima facie, a defense to the claim asserted by the opposing party; (2) that the moving party's failure to timely appear in the action, and answer the opponent's claim, was occasioned by mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (3) that the moving party acted with due diligence after notice of entry of the default judgment; and (4) that no substanti

2007CR 60(b); Dlouhy, 55 Wn.2d 718 . 2 Or, alternately, defendants may set aside a default judgment if they meet the four part test set forth in White : (1) That there is substantial evidence extant to support, at least prima facie, a defense to the claim asserted by the opposing party; (2) that the moving party’s failure to timely appear in the action, and answer the opponent’s claim, was occasioned by mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (3) that the moving party acted with due diligence after notice of entry of the default judgment; and (4) that no substantial hardship will res

2007White, 73 Wash.2d at 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (citing Hull, 17 Wash. 352 , 49 P. 537 ).

2007White, 73 Wn.2d at 352 (citing Hull, 17 Wash. 352 ).

2001The four factors are: "`(1) the nature of the crime, (2) the aggravating circumstances, (3) the defendant's criminal history and (4) the defendant's personal history.'" State v. Elmore, 139 Wash.2d 250, 308 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999) (quoting Brown, 132 Wash.2d at 555-56 , 940 P.2d 546 ). 1.

2001The four factors are: “ ‘(1) the nature of the crime, (2) the aggravating circumstances, (3) the defendant’s criminal history and (4) the defendant’s personal history.’ ” State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 308 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999) (quoting Brown, 132 Wn.2d at 555-56 ). 1.

2001The four factors are: "`(1) the nature of the crime, (2) the aggravating circumstances, (3) the defendant's criminal history and (4) the defendant's personal history.'" State v. Elmore, 139 Wash.2d 250, 308 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999) (quoting Brown, 132 Wash.2d at 555-56 , 940 P.2d 546 ). 1.

2001The four factors are: “ ‘(1) the nature of the crime, (2) the aggravating circumstances, (3) the defendant’s criminal history and (4) the defendant’s personal history.’ ” State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 308 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999) (quoting Brown, 132 Wn.2d at 555-56 ). 1.

2001The four factors are: "`(1) the nature of the crime, (2) the aggravating circumstances, (3) the defendant's criminal history and (4) the defendant's personal history.'" State v. Elmore, 139 Wash.2d 250, 308 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999) (quoting Brown, 132 Wash.2d at 555-56 , 940 P.2d 546 ). 1.

2001The four factors are: “ ‘(1) the nature of the crime, (2) the aggravating circumstances, (3) the defendant’s criminal history and (4) the defendant’s personal history.’ ” State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 308 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999) (quoting Brown, 132 Wn.2d at 555-56 ). 1.

2019Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 8 . “[W]hen [DOE] determines whether to issue a permit for appropriation of public groundwater, [it] must consider the interrelationship of the groundwater with surface waters, and must determine whether surface water rights would be impaired or affected by groundwater withdrawals.” Postema, 142 Wn.2d at 80-81 .

2016Because a defense attorney need not bring a futile motion, defense counsel’s conduct was not deficient.6 Based on the four part test of Sutherby, another motion to sever would have been futile. 165 Wn.2d at 884-85 .

2015State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 598-99 , 183 P.3d 267 (2008).

2015State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 598-99 , 183 P.3d 267 (2008).

2014State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 421 , 269 P. 3d.207 ( 2012).

2013App. 460,487 , 89 P.3d 271 (2004)).

2010Co. v. Jerome, 122 Wash.2d 157, 160 , 856 P.2d 1095 (1993)). [15] Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 663 , 958 P.2d 301 (1998). [16] Clerk's Papers at 67 (emphasis in original). [17] See Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wash.2d 396, 402-08 , 89 P.3d 689 (2004) (discussing, in the context of uninsured motorist coverage, the four part test Washington courts apply to determine whether an insured was "using a vehicle"). [18] See Clerk's Papers at 65 (the definitions section of the National Merit policy defines "auto" as "a private passenger vehicle having four wheels on the road."). [19] Weyerhaeuse

2010Co. v. Jerome, 122 Wash.2d 157, 160 , 856 P.2d 1095 (1993)). [15] Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 663 , 958 P.2d 301 (1998). [16] Clerk's Papers at 67 (emphasis in original). [17] See Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wash.2d 396, 402-08 , 89 P.3d 689 (2004) (discussing, in the context of uninsured motorist coverage, the four part test Washington courts apply to determine whether an insured was "using a vehicle"). [18] See Clerk's Papers at 65 (the definitions section of the National Merit policy defines "auto" as "a private passenger vehicle having four wheels on the road."). [19] Weyerhaeuse

2010Co. v. Jerome, 122 Wash.2d 157, 160 , 856 P.2d 1095 (1993)). [15] Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 663 , 958 P.2d 301 (1998). [16] Clerk's Papers at 67 (emphasis in original). [17] See Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wash.2d 396, 402-08 , 89 P.3d 689 (2004) (discussing, in the context of uninsured motorist coverage, the four part test Washington courts apply to determine whether an insured was "using a vehicle"). [18] See Clerk's Papers at 65 (the definitions section of the National Merit policy defines "auto" as "a private passenger vehicle having four wheels on the road."). [19] Weyerhaeuse

2010Co. v. Jerome, 122 Wash.2d 157, 160 , 856 P.2d 1095 (1993)). [15] Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 663 , 958 P.2d 301 (1998). [16] Clerk's Papers at 67 (emphasis in original). [17] See Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wash.2d 396, 402-08 , 89 P.3d 689 (2004) (discussing, in the context of uninsured motorist coverage, the four part test Washington courts apply to determine whether an insured was "using a vehicle"). [18] See Clerk's Papers at 65 (the definitions section of the National Merit policy defines "auto" as "a private passenger vehicle having four wheels on the road."). [19] Weyerhaeuse

2010Co. v. Jerome, 122 Wash.2d 157, 160 , 856 P.2d 1095 (1993)). [15] Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 663 , 958 P.2d 301 (1998). [16] Clerk's Papers at 67 (emphasis in original). [17] See Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wash.2d 396, 402-08 , 89 P.3d 689 (2004) (discussing, in the context of uninsured motorist coverage, the four part test Washington courts apply to determine whether an insured was "using a vehicle"). [18] See Clerk's Papers at 65 (the definitions section of the National Merit policy defines "auto" as "a private passenger vehicle having four wheels on the road."). [19] Weyerhaeuse

2010Co., 1 Wash. App. 46, 50 , 459 P.2d 61 (1969). [21] Boeing Co., 113 Wash.2d at 877 , 784 P.2d 507 . [22] Matthews, 106 Wash.App. at 751 , 25 P.3d 451 . [23] Morgan v. Prudential Ins.

2010Co. v. Jerome, 122 Wash.2d 157, 160 , 856 P.2d 1095 (1993)). [15] Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 663 , 958 P.2d 301 (1998). [16] Clerk's Papers at 67 (emphasis in original). [17] See Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wash.2d 396, 402-08 , 89 P.3d 689 (2004) (discussing, in the context of uninsured motorist coverage, the four part test Washington courts apply to determine whether an insured was "using a vehicle"). [18] See Clerk's Papers at 65 (the definitions section of the National Merit policy defines "auto" as "a private passenger vehicle having four wheels on the road."). [19] Weyerhaeuse

2010Co., 1 Wash. App. 46, 50 , 459 P.2d 61 (1969). [21] Boeing Co., 113 Wash.2d at 877 , 784 P.2d 507 . [22] Matthews, 106 Wash.App. at 751 , 25 P.3d 451 . [23] Morgan v. Prudential Ins.

2010Co., 1 Wash. App. 46, 50 , 459 P.2d 61 (1969). [21] Boeing Co., 113 Wash.2d at 877 , 784 P.2d 507 . [22] Matthews, 106 Wash.App. at 751 , 25 P.3d 451 . [23] Morgan v. Prudential Ins.

2010Co., 1 Wash. App. 46, 50 , 459 P.2d 61 (1969). [21] Boeing Co., 113 Wash.2d at 877 , 784 P.2d 507 . [22] Matthews, 106 Wash.App. at 751 , 25 P.3d 451 . [23] Morgan v. Prudential Ins.

2010Co., 1 Wash. App. 46, 50 , 459 P.2d 61 (1969). [21] Boeing Co., 113 Wash.2d at 877 , 784 P.2d 507 . [22] Matthews, 106 Wash.App. at 751 , 25 P.3d 451 . [23] Morgan v. Prudential Ins.

2010Co. v. Jerome, 122 Wash.2d 157, 160 , 856 P.2d 1095 (1993)). [15] Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 663 , 958 P.2d 301 (1998). [16] Clerk's Papers at 67 (emphasis in original). [17] See Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wash.2d 396, 402-08 , 89 P.3d 689 (2004) (discussing, in the context of uninsured motorist coverage, the four part test Washington courts apply to determine whether an insured was "using a vehicle"). [18] See Clerk's Papers at 65 (the definitions section of the National Merit policy defines "auto" as "a private passenger vehicle having four wheels on the road."). [19] Weyerhaeuse