affirmed principle in Washington

2025Br. of Resp’t at 56 (Wash. Ct. App. No. 39483-2-III (2023)) (citing In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Sanai, 167 Wn.2d 740, 752 , 225 P.3d 203 (2009)).

2025Br. of Resp’t at 56 (Wash. Ct. App. No. 39483-2-III (2023)) (citing In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Sanai, 167 Wn.2d 740, 752 , 225 P.3d 203 (2009)).

2024App. 782 , 125 P.3d 169 (2005), wherein the sentencing court imposed on John Grayson a 138-month sentence for one cause number and, one month later, a 144-month sentence for a different cause number.

2024This court affirmed this principle in State v. Grayson, 130 Wn.

2011Our case law is more intricate and precise than that. ¶ 34 In Dickinson , this court affirmed the test we have adopted for determining whether an employee is, at a given time, acting within the scope of his employment: "[W]hether the employee was, at the time, engaged in the performance of the duties required of him by his contract of employment, or by specific direction of his employer; *191 or, as sometimes stated, whether he was engaged at the time in the furtherance of the employer's interest. " Dickinson, 105 Wash.2d at 467 , 716 P.2d 814 (quoting Elder v. Cisco Constr.

2011Our case law is more intricate and precise than that. ¶ 34 In Dickinson , this court affirmed the test we have adopted for determining whether an employee is, at a given time, acting within the scope of his employment: "[W]hether the employee was, at the time, engaged in the performance of the duties required of him by his contract of employment, or by specific direction of his employer; *191 or, as sometimes stated, whether he was engaged at the time in the furtherance of the employer's interest. " Dickinson, 105 Wash.2d at 467 , 716 P.2d 814 (quoting Elder v. Cisco Constr.

1999In Eilers Music House v. French, 100 Wash. 552, 554 , 171 P.2d 527 (1918), this court stated: “While a custom has grown almost into settled practice for the attorneys to present findings, conclusions, and judgment for the signature of the judge ... it is the statutory duty of the judge himself to perform these functions.” This court affirmed that the requirement that findings be “prepared and signed” is “for the protection of the court and parties.” Western Dry Goods Co. v. Hamilton, 86 Wash. 478, 480 , 150 P. 1171 (1915).

1999In Eilers Music House v. French, 100 Wash. 552, 554 , 171 P.2d 527 (1918), this court stated: “While a custom has grown almost into settled practice for the attorneys to present findings, conclusions, and judgment for the signature of the judge ... it is the statutory duty of the judge himself to perform these functions.” This court affirmed that the requirement that findings be “prepared and signed” is “for the protection of the court and parties.” Western Dry Goods Co. v. Hamilton, 86 Wash. 478, 480 , 150 P. 1171 (1915).

1999In State v. Sutherland, 94 Wn.2d 527 , 617 P.2d 1010 (1980), the court affirmed this principle. “[W]e want to make it clear that nothing said herein is intended to discredit the polygraph as a tool in police investigations.” Id. at 528 .

1999In State v. Sutherland, 94 Wn.2d 527 , 617 P.2d 1010 (1980), the court affirmed this principle. “[W]e want to make it clear that nothing said herein is intended to discredit the polygraph as a tool in police investigations.” Id. at 528 .

1999Similarly, in State v. Cherry, 61 Wn.

1999In Eilers Music House v. French, 100 Wash. 552, 554 , 171 P.2d 527 (1918), this court stated: “While a custom has grown almost into settled practice for the attorneys to present findings, conclusions, and judgment for the signature of the judge ... it is the statutory duty of the judge himself to perform these functions.” This court affirmed that the requirement that findings be “prepared and signed” is “for the protection of the court and parties.” Western Dry Goods Co. v. Hamilton, 86 Wash. 478, 480 , 150 P. 1171 (1915).

1999In Eilers Music House v. French, 100 Wash. 552, 554 , 171 P.2d 527 (1918), this court stated: “While a custom has grown almost into settled practice for the attorneys to present findings, conclusions, and judgment for the signature of the judge ... it is the statutory duty of the judge himself to perform these functions.” This court affirmed that the requirement that findings be “prepared and signed” is “for the protection of the court and parties.” Western Dry Goods Co. v. Hamilton, 86 Wash. 478, 480 , 150 P. 1171 (1915).

1931In Foster v. Commissioners of Cowlitz County, 100 Wash. 502 , 171 Pac. 539 , the act of 1917, under which the bonds in this action were issued, was under consideration.

1931In Foster v. Commissioners of Cowlitz County, 100 Wash. 502 , 171 Pac. 539 , the act of 1917, under which the bonds in this action were issued, was under consideration.

1931In Poolman v. Langdon, 94 Wash. 448 , 162 Pac. 578 , construing the act of 1913, the court affirmed the rule that the total amount of assessments cannot exceed the benefits accrued; and the case of Linn v. Walla Walla County, 99 Wash. 224 , 169 Pac. 323 , is to the same effect.

1931In Poolman v. Langdon, 94 Wash. 448 , 162 Pac. 578 , construing the act of 1913, the court affirmed the rule that the total amount of assessments cannot exceed the benefits accrued; and the case of Linn v. Walla Walla County, 99 Wash. 224 , 169 Pac. 323 , is to the same effect.

1931In Poolman v. Langdon, 94 Wash. 448 , 162 Pac. 578 , construing the act of 1913, the court affirmed the rule that the total amount of assessments cannot exceed the benefits accrued; and the case of Linn v. Walla Walla County, 99 Wash. 224 , 169 Pac. 323 , is to the same effect.

1931In Poolman v. Langdon, 94 Wash. 448 , 162 Pac. 578 , construing the act of 1913, the court affirmed the rule that the total amount of assessments cannot exceed the benefits accrued; and the case of Linn v. Walla Walla County, 99 Wash. 224 , 169 Pac. 323 , is to the same effect.