absence of any claim in Washington

2014Given its distinct facts and the absence of any analysis of what qualifies as “stolen property,” Lillard is not helpful in deciding this case. ¶17 In State v. Michielli, 132 Wn.2d 229 , 937 P.2d 587 (1997), our Supreme Court reversed a decision of this court and in the process discussed a Florida case, State v. Camp, 579 So. 2d 763 (Fla. Dist.

2014Given its distinct facts and the absence of any analysis of what qualifies as “stolen property,” Lillard is not helpful in deciding this case. ¶17 In State v. Michielli, 132 Wn.2d 229 , 937 P.2d 587 (1997), our Supreme Court reversed a decision of this court and in the process discussed a Florida case, State v. Camp, 579 So. 2d 763 (Fla. Dist.

2003The State's evidence bore "minimum indicia of reliability," which, especially in the absence of any challenge, proved Blunt's three prior DUIs. [11] Ford, 137 Wash.2d at 480-81 , 973 P.2d 452 .

2003The State’s evidence bore “minimum indicia of reliability,” which, especially in the absence of any challenge, proved Blunt’s three prior DUIs. 11 Ford, 137 Wn.2d at 480-81 .

2002Dec. 1 (1996) (trial court was justified in finding that illiquidity of company had a significant bearing on the intrinsic value of the stock, especially in the absence of any claim of oppressive corporate conduct); Ford v. Courier-Journal Job Printing Co., 639 S.W.2d 553 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982) (affirming application of 25 percent lack of marketability discount to net asset value of closely held company); Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett, 615 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. 2000) (establishing a bright-line rule foreclosing consideration of discount would be inconsistent with the legislative poli

2002Dec. 1 (1996) (trial court was justified in finding that illiquidity of company had a significant bearing on the intrinsic value of the stock, especially in the absence of any claim of oppressive corporate conduct); Ford v. Courier-Journal Job Printing Co., 639 S.W.2d 553 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982) (affirming application of 25 percent lack of marketability discount to net asset value of closely held company); Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett, 615 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. 2000) (establishing a bright-line rule foreclosing consideration of discount would be inconsistent with the legislative poli

2002See Swope, 243 F.3d at 494 (lack of marketability of shares not a relevant fact absent extraordinary circumstances); Atlantic States Const., Inc. v. Beavers, 169 Ga.App. 584 , 314 S.E.2d 245 (1984) (marketability of stock may be a factor in determining fair value); Weigel Broadcasting Co. v. Smith, 289 Ill.App.3d 602 , 225 Ill.Dec. 1 , 682 N.E.2d 745, 751 (1996) (trial court was justified in finding that illiquidity of company had a significant bearing on the intrinsic value of the stock, especially in the absence of any claim of oppressive corporate conduct); Ford v. Courier-Journal Job Print

2002Dec. 1 (1996) (trial court was justified in finding that illiquidity of company had a significant bearing on the intrinsic value of the stock, especially in the absence of any claim of oppressive corporate conduct); Ford v. Courier-Journal Job Printing Co., 639 S.W.2d 553 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982) (affirming application of 25 percent lack of marketability discount to net asset value of closely held company); Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett, 615 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. 2000) (establishing a bright-line rule foreclosing consideration of discount would be inconsistent with the legislative poli

2002See Swope, 243 F.3d at 494 (lack of marketability of shares not a relevant fact absent extraordinary circumstances); Atlantic States Const., Inc. v. Beavers, 169 Ga.App. 584 , 314 S.E.2d 245 (1984) (marketability of stock may be a factor in determining fair value); Weigel Broadcasting Co. v. Smith, 289 Ill.App.3d 602 , 225 Ill.Dec. 1 , 682 N.E.2d 745, 751 (1996) (trial court was justified in finding that illiquidity of company had a significant bearing on the intrinsic value of the stock, especially in the absence of any claim of oppressive corporate conduct); Ford v. Courier-Journal Job Print

2002Dec. 1 (1996) (trial court was justified in finding that illiquidity of company had a significant bearing on the intrinsic value of the stock, especially in the absence of any claim of oppressive corporate conduct); Ford v. Courier-Journal Job Printing Co., 639 S.W.2d 553 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982) (affirming application of 25 percent lack of marketability discount to net asset value of closely held company); Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett, 615 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. 2000) (establishing a bright-line rule foreclosing consideration of discount would be inconsistent with the legislative poli

2014Ct. App. 1991), aff’d, 596 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1992).

2014Given its distinct facts and the absence of any analysis of what qualifies as “stolen property,” Lillard is not helpful in deciding this case. ¶17 In State v. Michielli, 132 Wn.2d 229 , 937 P.2d 587 (1997), our Supreme Court reversed a decision of this court and in the process discussed a Florida case, State v. Camp, 579 So. 2d 763 (Fla. Dist.

2013Under ER 103( a)( 1) and Mason, 160 Wn.2d at 933 , the reference to res gestae does not translate this to an ER 404( b) objection.

2002See Swope, 243 F.3d at 494 (lack of marketability of shares not a relevant fact absent extraordinary circumstances); Atlantic States Const., Inc. v. Beavers, 169 Ga.App. 584 , 314 S.E.2d 245 (1984) (marketability of stock may be a factor in determining fair value); Weigel Broadcasting Co. v. Smith, 289 Ill.App.3d 602 , 225 Ill.Dec. 1 , 682 N.E.2d 745, 751 (1996) (trial court was justified in finding that illiquidity of company had a significant bearing on the intrinsic value of the stock, especially in the absence of any claim of oppressive corporate conduct); Ford v. Courier-Journal Job Print

2002See Swope, 243 F.3d at 494 (lack of marketability of shares not a relevant fact absent extraordinary circumstances); Atlantic States Const., Inc. v. Beavers, 169 Ga.App. 584 , 314 S.E.2d 245 (1984) (marketability of stock may be a factor in determining fair value); Weigel Broadcasting Co. v. Smith, 289 Ill.App.3d 602 , 225 Ill.Dec. 1 , 682 N.E.2d 745, 751 (1996) (trial court was justified in finding that illiquidity of company had a significant bearing on the intrinsic value of the stock, especially in the absence of any claim of oppressive corporate conduct); Ford v. Courier-Journal Job Print

1978It is further argued that the same "determinative factors" set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the appendix to Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 16 L.

1978It is further argued that the same "determinative factors" set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the appendix to Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 16 L.

1943“Respondent county did not warn the traveling public by signs or barriers of the dangerous condition it permitted to develop and of which it had knowledge.” In Dillabough v. Okanogan County, 105 Wash. 609, 616 , 178 Pac. 802 , the county had constructed and maintained an insufficient culvert at a curve in the road.

1943“Respondent county did not warn the traveling public by signs or barriers of the dangerous condition it permitted to develop and of which it had knowledge.” In Dillabough v. Okanogan County, 105 Wash. 609, 616 , 178 Pac. 802 , the county had constructed and maintained an insufficient culvert at a curve in the road.

1943(The grade in the instant case was but one per cent ascending to the north.) In Simmons v. Cowlitz County, 12 Wn. (2d) 84, 87, 120 P. (2d) 479 , where the county maintained soft shoulders on a fourteen foot road, the absence of any warning was the determining factor.

1923Answering the objection, it was said: “There.is nothing in the charter, or in any of the ordinances of said city to which our attention has been called, which requires the proof of the publication of such notice to be preserved by the city clerk in any particular way, or at all for that matter, though doubtless the city records should show in some way that such notice was published, and a regular way would be by an affidavit of the publisher, and such affidavit thus appearing would be held to be prima facie proof of the publication; but in the absence of any such requirement, competent proof t

1923Answering the objection, it was said: “There.is nothing in the charter, or in any of the ordinances of said city to which our attention has been called, which requires the proof of the publication of such notice to be preserved by the city clerk in any particular way, or at all for that matter, though doubtless the city records should show in some way that such notice was published, and a regular way would be by an affidavit of the publisher, and such affidavit thus appearing would be held to be prima facie proof of the publication; but in the absence of any such requirement, competent proof t

1918In Brown v. San Francisco Gas & Light Co., 58 Cal. 426 , under a statute in substance the same as § 3693, Rem.

1901The great weight of authority is against those decisions, and we believe that, in the absence of any exception from the statute of •actions upon judgments of the courts of this state, they are within the letter of the Code,” — citing Hummer v. Lamphear, 32 Kan. 439 ( 4 Pac. 865 , 49 Am.

1901Rep. 491 ), approved in Schuyler County Bank v. Bradbury, 56 Kan. 355 ( 43 Pac. 254 ), and Mason v. Cronise, 20 Cal. 217 .

1901Rep. 491 ), approved in Schuyler County Bank v. Bradbury, 56 Kan. 355 ( 43 Pac. 254 ), and Mason v. Cronise, 20 Cal. 217 .