firmly established rule in Washington

1953In Omeitt v. Department of Labor & Industries, 21 Wn. (2d) 684, 152 P. (2d) 973 , we said: “It is the firmly established rule that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict involves no element of discretion and will not be granted unless the court can say, as a matter of law, that there is neither evidence nor reasonable inference from evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. [Citing cases.] “In ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be viewed in-the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and all material evidence f

1948“It is the firmly established rule that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict involves no element of discretion and will not be granted unless the court can say, as a matter of law, that there is neither evidence nor reason *855 able inference from evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. [Citing cases.] “In ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and all material evidence favorable to the contention of the party benefited by the verdict must be taken as tru

2016Thus, in reaffirming the firmly established principle that the corpus delicti rule is “not constitutionally mandated,” the Dow court implicitly rejected the concurrence’s proposition that RAP 2.5(a)(3) allows Cardenas-Flores to raise the issue for the first time on appeal. 168 Wn.2d at 249 . 4 Accordingly, any error in admitting evidence subject to the corpus delicti rule does not fall under RAP 2.5(a)(3)’s exception for a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” (Emphasis added.) Finally, unlike here, the State in Dow conceded at trial and on appeal that the only evidence it had in

2016Thus, in reaffirming the firmly established principle that the corpus delicti rule is “not constitutionally mandated,” the Dow court implicitly rejected the concurrence’s proposition that RAP 2.5(a)(3) allows Cardenas-Flores to raise the issue for the first time on appeal. 168 Wn.2d at 249 . 4 Accordingly, any error in admitting evidence subject to the corpus delicti rule does not fall under RAP 2.5(a)(3)’s exception for a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” (Emphasis added.) Finally, unlike here, the State in Dow conceded at trial and on appeal that the only evidence it had in

2011While Mr. Kralman testified to the contrary, “it is a firmly established rule” that when substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings, appellate courts “will not retry factual disputes [ ]on appeal.” Ferree v. Doric Co., 62 Wn.2d 561, 568 , 383 P.2d 900 (1963).

2011While Mr. Kralman testified to the contrary, “it is a firmly established rule” that when substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings, appellate courts “will not retry factual disputes [ ]on appeal.” Ferree v. Doric Co., 62 Wn.2d 561, 568 , 383 P.2d 900 (1963).

1975State v. Oswalt, 62 Wn.2d 118 , 381 P.2d 617 (1963); State v. Hall, 10 Wn.

1975State v. Oswalt, 62 Wn.2d 118 , 381 P.2d 617 (1963); State v. Hall, 10 Wn.

1975State v. Oswalt, 62 Wn.2d 118 , 381 P.2d 617 (1963); State v. Hall, 10 Wn.

1972Ed. 2092 , 65 S. Ct. 1475 (1945); Kasishke v. Baker, 144 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1944); Biggins v. Oltmer Iron Works, 154 F.2d 214 (7th Cir. 1946); Durkin v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc., 202 F.2d 425 (6th Cir. 1953).

1972Ed. 2092 , 65 S. Ct. 1475 (1945); Kasishke v. Baker, 144 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1944); Biggins v. Oltmer Iron Works, 154 F.2d 214 (7th Cir. 1946); Durkin v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc., 202 F.2d 425 (6th Cir. 1953).

1972The Forgay-Conrad rule has become a firmly established rule of necessity. 5 Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120 , 89 L.

1972The Forgay-Conrad rule has become a firmly established rule of necessity. 5 Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120 , 89 L.

1972Ed. 2092 , 65 S. Ct. 1475 (1945); Kasishke v. Baker, 144 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1944); Biggins v. Oltmer Iron Works, 154 F.2d 214 (7th Cir. 1946); Durkin v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc., 202 F.2d 425 (6th Cir. 1953).

1965Dodd v. Polack, 63 Wn. (2d) 828, 389 P. (2d) 289 ; Wells & Wade Hardware, Inc. v. Wenatchee, 64 Wn. (2d) 103, *953 390 P. (2d) 701 ; Morris v. Rosenberg, 64 Wn. (2d) 404, 391 P. (2d) 975 ; Boise Cascade Corp. v. Pence, 64 Wn. (2d) 798, 394 P. (2d) 359 .

1965Dodd v. Polack, 63 Wn. (2d) 828, 389 P. (2d) 289 ; Wells & Wade Hardware, Inc. v. Wenatchee, 64 Wn. (2d) 103, *953 390 P. (2d) 701 ; Morris v. Rosenberg, 64 Wn. (2d) 404, 391 P. (2d) 975 ; Boise Cascade Corp. v. Pence, 64 Wn. (2d) 798, 394 P. (2d) 359 .

1965Dodd v. Polack, 63 Wn. (2d) 828, 389 P. (2d) 289 ; Wells & Wade Hardware, Inc. v. Wenatchee, 64 Wn. (2d) 103, *953 390 P. (2d) 701 ; Morris v. Rosenberg, 64 Wn. (2d) 404, 391 P. (2d) 975 ; Boise Cascade Corp. v. Pence, 64 Wn. (2d) 798, 394 P. (2d) 359 .

1965Dodd v. Polack, 63 Wn. (2d) 828, 389 P. (2d) 289 ; Wells & Wade Hardware, Inc. v. Wenatchee, 64 Wn. (2d) 103, *953 390 P. (2d) 701 ; Morris v. Rosenberg, 64 Wn. (2d) 404, 391 P. (2d) 975 ; Boise Cascade Corp. v. Pence, 64 Wn. (2d) 798, 394 P. (2d) 359 .

1963Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn. (2d) 570, 575, 343 P. (2d) 183 (1959); Seattle v. Nazarenus, 60 Wn. (2d) 657, 374 P. (2d) 1014 (1962); Nicolai v. Transcontinental Ins.

1963Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn. (2d) 570, 575, 343 P. (2d) 183 (1959); Seattle v. Nazarenus, 60 Wn. (2d) 657, 374 P. (2d) 1014 (1962); Nicolai v. Transcontinental Ins.

1960In re Jones v. Superior Court, 39 Wn. (2d) 956, 239 P. (2d) 856 (1952); State ex rel.

1960In re Jones v. Superior Court, 39 Wn. (2d) 956, 239 P. (2d) 856 (1952); State ex rel.

1948In D’Amico v. Conguista, 24 Wn. (2d) 674, 167 P. (2d) 157 , we recited the definite conditions which must exist at the time of an injury in order to entitle one to the benefits of the workmen’s compensation act.

1947The legal principle is set out in McCoy v. Courtney, 25 Wn. (2d) 956, 172 P. (2d) 596 , where it is stated on p. 895 as follows: “A rule to be remembered in this connection is that a challenge by a defendant to the sufficiency of the evidence of the plaintiff, or a motion for nonsuit, admits the truth of plaintiff’s evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom, and requires that the evidence be interpreted most strongly against the defendant.” Stated in another way, the rule is set out in Omeitt v. Department of Labor & Industries, 21 Wn. (2d) 684, 152 P. (2d) 973 , as fo

1947In Ziniewicz v. Department of Labor & Industries, 23 Wn. (2d) 436, 161 P. (2d) 315 , speaking at p. 444, we stated: “If a workman sustains an injury to his foot or to his arm, and as a result of such injury other parts of his body are affected, the injured workman would be entitled to compensation for the total extent of his disability.

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1944Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598 , 24 P. (2d) 99 ; Tjosevig v. Butler, 180 Wash. 151 , 38 P. (2d) 1022 ; Stevich v. Department of Labor & Industries, 182 Wash. 401 , 47 P. *686 (2d) 32; Gross v. Partlow, 190 Wash. 489 , 68 P. (2d) 1034 ; Gibson v. Spokane United Rys., 197 Wash. 58 , 84 P. (2d) 349 ; Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Corp., 10 Wn. (2d) 574, 117 P. (2d) 651 ; Richey & Gilbert Co. v. Northwestern Natural Gas Corp., 16 Wn. (2d) 631, 134 P. (2d) 444 .

1942Olsen v. Peerless Laundry, 111 Wash. 660 , 191 Pac. 756 ; Davis v. Riegel, supra; Ahrens v. Anderson, 186 Wash. 182 , 57 P. (2d) 410 .

1942Olsen v. Peerless Laundry, 111 Wash. 660 , 191 Pac. 756 ; Davis v. Riegel, supra; Ahrens v. Anderson, 186 Wash. 182 , 57 P. (2d) 410 .

1942Olsen v. Peerless Laundry, 111 Wash. 660 , 191 Pac. 756 ; Davis v. Riegel, supra; Ahrens v. Anderson, 186 Wash. 182 , 57 P. (2d) 410 .

1942Olsen v. Peerless Laundry, 111 Wash. 660 , 191 Pac. 756 ; Davis v. Riegel, supra; Ahrens v. Anderson, 186 Wash. 182 , 57 P. (2d) 410 .

1925(Matter of Dunn, 205 N. Y. 398 .) If the client has the right to terminate the relationship of attorney and client at any time without cause, it follows as a corollary that the client cannot be compelled to pay damages for exercising a right which is an implied condition of the contract.