revision hearing in Washington

2021Biddinger v. Griffiths, 137 Wash. 448, 451 , 242 P. 969 (1926).

2021Biddinger v. Griffiths, 137 Wash. 448, 451 , 242 P. 969 (1926).

2013Ms. Holt moved for revision, and before the revision hearing this court issued M.F., 168 Wn.2d 528 .

2013Ms. Holt moved for revision, and before the revision hearing this court issued MF., 168 Wn.2d 528 .

2025Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wn.2d 308, 313-14 , 386 P.3d 711 (2016).

2025Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wn.2d 308, 313-14 , 386 P.3d 711 (2016).

2022When a decision on a motion for revision is appealed, we review “the decision of the superior court judge, not the commissioner.” In re Marriage of Lyle, 199 Wn.

2021App. 532, 537 , 54 P.3d 192 (2002), rev’d in part on other grounds, 150 Wn.2d 234 (2003). 2 No. 36912-9-III In re Marriage of Eaton We have described the revision hearing process: When a superior court judge receives a case through a motion for revision, the judge takes “jurisdiction of the entire case as heard before the commissioner.” State ex rel.

2021App. 532, 537 , 54 P.3d 192 (2002), rev’d in part on other grounds, 150 Wn.2d 234 (2003). 2 No. 36912-9-III In re Marriage of Eaton We have described the revision hearing process: When a superior court judge receives a case through a motion for revision, the judge takes “jurisdiction of the entire case as heard before the commissioner.” State ex rel.

2020RCW 2.24.050; Ramer, 151 Wn.2d at 113 .

2018Ed. 2d 18 (1976) and holding that commissioner's hearing on protection order without cross-examination did not violate due process and that the "guarantee that a person must be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner is protected by the procedures in chapter 26.50 RCW"); Gourley v. Gourley, 158 Wn.2d 460, 467-68 , 145 P.3d 1185 (2006) -10- No. 76767-4/11 Phan's complaint that "he was not afforded an opportunity to cross examine Ngo" and that "no witnesses were placed under oath" at the revision hearing ignores the fact that these procedures were available at the commissioner's he

2018Ed. 2d 18 (1976) and holding that commissioner's hearing on protection order without cross-examination did not violate due process and that the "guarantee that a person must be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner is protected by the procedures in chapter 26.50 RCW"); Gourley v. Gourley, 158 Wn.2d 460, 467-68 , 145 P.3d 1185 (2006) -10- No. 76767-4/11 Phan's complaint that "he was not afforded an opportunity to cross examine Ngo" and that "no witnesses were placed under oath" at the revision hearing ignores the fact that these procedures were available at the commissioner's he

2005It appears that the commissioner only subtracted the $20 premium for Scott from the $282 and used the remaining $262 as credit against Scott's child support obligation for health insurance for his and Cathie's child, without regard to the other two children who were also covered by the remaining $262 premium. [14] Scanlon, 109 Wash.App. at 175 , 34 P.3d 877 ("[A] credit may not include ... any portion of premium not covering the child at issue."). ¶ 27 The monthly insurance cost increased before the revision hearing. [15] At that time, Scott's personal insurance cost $25 and the company charge

2005It appears that the commissioner only subtracted the $20 premium for Scott from the $282 and used the remaining $262 as credit against Scott's child support obligation for health insurance for his and Cathie's child, without regard to the other two children who were also covered by the remaining $262 premium. [14] Scanlon, 109 Wash.App. at 175 , 34 P.3d 877 ("[A] credit may not include ... any portion of premium not covering the child at issue."). ¶ 27 The monthly insurance cost increased before the revision hearing. [15] At that time, Scott's personal insurance cost $25 and the company charge

1992Even this evidence, although it developed during the year which intervened between the filing of the petition and the ruling on revision, was relevant evidence in this state concerning the children's present and future care, protection, training and personal relationships. [31] See Hudson v. Hudson, 35 Wn.

1992Even this evidence, although it developed during the year which intervened between the filing of the petition and the ruling on revision, was relevant evidence in this state concerning the children's present and future care, protection, training and personal relationships. 31 See Hudson v. Hudson, 35 Wn.

1989The Court of Appeals decision in this case is in conflict with In re McGee, 36 Wn.

1983Memel v. Reimer, 85 Wn.2d 685, 690 , 538 P.2d 517 (1975).

1983Memel v. Reimer, 85 Wn.2d 685, 690 , 538 P.2d 517 (1975).

1983Since plaintiff has sought and obtained a revision of the rule most recently decided by this court in Morton v. Lee, 75 Wn.2d 393 , 450 P.2d 957 (1969), the fact that her proposed instruction in the trial court, based upon Ciminski v. Finn Corp., supra, did not precisely anticipate the exact form of the revision does not prevent submission of the issue to the jury at a new trial under an appropriate instruction.

1983Since plaintiff has sought and obtained a revision of the rule most recently decided by this court in Morton v. Lee, 75 Wn.2d 393 , 450 P.2d 957 (1969), the fact that her proposed instruction in the trial court, based upon Ciminski v. Finn Corp., supra, did not precisely anticipate the exact form of the revision does not prevent submission of the issue to the jury at a new trial under an appropriate instruction.