followed principle in Washington

1943Co. , 295 U.S. 662 , 79 L.Ed. 1640 , 55 S.Ct. 894 , the court followed the principle that the method employed by the rate-making authority in determining a rate was subject to judicial examination, and that, if it appeared that the authority followed a method proscribed by law, the findings made by the authority were arbitrary and illegal.

1943Co. , 295 U.S. 662 , 79 L.Ed. 1640 , 55 S.Ct. 894 , the court followed the principle that the method employed by the rate-making authority in determining a rate was subject to judicial examination, and that, if it appeared that the authority followed a method proscribed by law, the findings made by the authority were arbitrary and illegal.

1943Puget Sound Power Light Co. v. Department of Public Works , 179 Wn. 461 , 38 P.2d 350 , this court followed the principle that rates established by the department must rest on a fundamentally sound legal basis.

1943Puget Sound Power Light Co. v. Department of Public Works , 179 Wn. 461 , 38 P.2d 350 , this court followed the principle that rates established by the department must rest on a fundamentally sound legal basis.

2024Wynn v. Earin, 163 Wn.2d 361, 371 , 181 P.3d 806 (2008); StarKist Co. v. State, 25 Wn.

2024Wynn v. Earin, 163 Wn.2d 361, 371 , 181 P.3d 806 (2008); StarKist Co. v. State, 25 Wn.

2018The court followed the rule of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius – specific inclusions exclude implication.” Id. at 901 .

2018The court followed the rule of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius - specific inclusions exclude implication." Id. at 901, 976 P.2d 616 .

1986In Rosel-lini, this court followed the bar's 3 to 2 recommendation to disbar. 97 Wn.2d 373 .

1986In Rosellini , this court followed the bar's 3 to 2 recommendation to disbar. 97 Wn.2d 373 .

1983This court there followed the test established in Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 88 Wn.2d 726, 731 , 565 P.2d 1162 (1977): The question essentially is one of social policy which requires the balancing of the public interest in regulating the use of private property against the interests of private landowners not to be encumbered by restrictions on the use of their property.

1983This court there followed the test established in Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 88 Wn.2d 726, 731 , 565 P.2d 1162 (1977): The question essentially is one of social policy which requires the balancing of the public interest in regulating the use of private property against the interests of private landowners not to be encumbered by restrictions on the use of their property.

1971The analysis of the Washington Supreme Court in Wright has been vindicated in the plurality opinion of United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 , 28 L.

1971The analysis of the Washington Supreme Court in Wright has been vindicated in the plurality opinion of United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 , 28 L.

1948In re Hansen, 21 Wn. (2d) 695, 152 P. (2d) 712 .

1942In that case, there was impeached testimony of defendant’s manager to the effect that the driver of the car was violating a rule of defendant company in driving the vehicle which caused the injury. *44 In Ludberg v. Barghoorn, 73 Wash. 476 , 131 Pac. 1165 , the driver of defendant’s car caused an injury.The evidence relative to the purpose of taking defendant’s car shows that the driver was not acting for the owner at the time of the accident.

1942In that case, there was impeached testimony of defendant’s manager to the effect that the driver of the car was violating a rule of defendant company in driving the vehicle which caused the injury. *44 In Ludberg v. Barghoorn, 73 Wash. 476 , 131 Pac. 1165 , the driver of defendant’s car caused an injury.The evidence relative to the purpose of taking defendant’s car shows that the driver was not acting for the owner at the time of the accident.

1935In these matters, the trial court followed the rule laid down by this court in Hatcher v. Globe Union Manufacturing Co., 170 Wash. 494 , 16 P. (2d) 824 .

1935In these matters, the trial court followed the rule laid down by this court in Hatcher v. Globe Union Manufacturing Co., 170 Wash. 494 , 16 P. (2d) 824 .

1932Kennedy v. McMurray, supra, [ 169 Cal. 287 , 146 Pac. 647 ]; Conneally v. San Francisco S. & L.

1932Kennedy v. McMurray, supra, [ 169 Cal. 287 , 146 Pac. 647 ]; Conneally v. San Francisco S. & L.

1927State v. Bringgold, 40 Wash. 12 , 82 Pac. 132 , 5 Ann.

1927State v. Bringgold, 40 Wash. 12 , 82 Pac. 132 , 5 Ann.

1924In this particular and generally the trial court followed the rule laid down in Briglio v. Holt & Jeffery, 85 Wash. 155 , 147 Pac. 877 , as follows: “The proper instructions as to the application of the presumption would be thus: The jury should be instructed that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish all the controverted allegations of his complaint by a fair preponderance of the evidence, and defining preponderance of the evidence; that when a situation is shown which necessarily infers negligence on the part of defendant, or res ipsa loquitur, the burden then devolves upon

1924In this particular and generally the trial court followed the rule laid down in Briglio v. Holt & Jeffery, 85 Wash. 155 , 147 Pac. 877 , as follows: “The proper instructions as to the application of the presumption would be thus: The jury should be instructed that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish all the controverted allegations of his complaint by a fair preponderance of the evidence, and defining preponderance of the evidence; that when a situation is shown which necessarily infers negligence on the part of defendant, or res ipsa loquitur, the burden then devolves upon

1919Co. v. State, 102 Wash. 348 , 173 Pac. 40 , allowing special benefits to be offset against the damages to the land not taken on behalf of the public, and the only question involved is, What are special benefits which may be offset against damages to the land not taken in such case?

1919Co. v. State, 102 Wash. 348 , 173 Pac. 40 , allowing special benefits to be offset against the damages to the land not taken on behalf of the public, and the only question involved is, What are special benefits which may be offset against damages to the land not taken in such case?