limits doctrine in Washington

2015Mclntvre. 131 S. Ct. 2780 .

2015McIntyre, 564 U.S. 873 . ¶16 In that case, a British manufacturer — J.

2022To support this statement, Phillips 66 relies on In re Jurisdiction of King County Hearing Exam’r, 135 Wn.

2014Cf. State v. Fricks, 91 Wn.2d 391, 396 , 588 P.2d 1328 ( 1979). 15 No. 42919 -5 -II The prosecutor attempted to invoke the missing witness doctrine by asking about Booth' s failure to call witnesses that would corroborate his alibi.

2014Cf. State v. Fricks, 91 Wn.2d 391, 396 , 588 P.2d 1328 ( 1979). 15 No. 42919 -5 -II The prosecutor attempted to invoke the missing witness doctrine by asking about Booth' s failure to call witnesses that would corroborate his alibi.

2014Sego, 82 Wn.2d at 739 .

1961Ed. (2d) 126, 77 S. Ct. 161 (1956), the United States supreme court, in defining the limits of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, stated: “. . . ‘Primary jurisdiction,’ . . . applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views.” (Italics ours.) See, also, 3 Davis, Admi

1952LeCocq Motors v. Whatcom County, 4 Wn. (2d) 601, 603, 104 P. (2d) 475 (1940).

1910Assuming now that Mrs. Lewis’ acquisition of this property was for the community and not as her separate property, and that therefore the matter must be dealt with as if respondent was acquiring an interest in it, we think the principle of law con-' trolling the rights of the parties may be stated in the language of Chief Justice Fuller, speaking for the supreme court of the United States in Hammond v. Hopkins, 143 U. S. 224, 251 , as follows: “Undoubtedly the doctrine is established that a trustee cannot purchase or deal in the trust property for his own benefit or on his own behalf, directly

1901Appellant, in its brief, relies upon the case of Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419 ( 4 Pac. 409 ), and Patterson v Tarbell, 26 Ore. 29 ( 37 Pac. 76 ), which hold that the discoverer must immediately locate 'his claim by distinctly marking the same on the ground so that the boundaries may be readily traced; and in default thereof a subsequent location, peaceably made, will prevail against a prior discoverer.

1901Appellant, in its brief, relies upon the case of Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419 ( 4 Pac. 409 ), and Patterson v Tarbell, 26 Ore. 29 ( 37 Pac. 76 ), which hold that the discoverer must immediately locate 'his claim by distinctly marking the same on the ground so that the boundaries may be readily traced; and in default thereof a subsequent location, peaceably made, will prevail against a prior discoverer.

1901Appellant, in its brief, relies upon the case of Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419 ( 4 Pac. 409 ), and Patterson v Tarbell, 26 Ore. 29 ( 37 Pac. 76 ), which hold that the discoverer must immediately locate 'his claim by distinctly marking the same on the ground so that the boundaries may be readily traced; and in default thereof a subsequent location, peaceably made, will prevail against a prior discoverer.

1901Appellant, in its brief, relies upon the case of Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419 ( 4 Pac. 409 ), and Patterson v Tarbell, 26 Ore. 29 ( 37 Pac. 76 ), which hold that the discoverer must immediately locate 'his claim by distinctly marking the same on the ground so that the boundaries may be readily traced; and in default thereof a subsequent location, peaceably made, will prevail against a prior discoverer.