close analysis in Washington

2002ANALYSIS "A placement decision in a dependency proceeding is discretionary and will be overturned on appeal only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion." In re Dependency of A.C., 74 Wash.App. 271, 275 , 873 P.2d 535 (1994).

2002ANALYSIS “A placement decision in a dependency proceeding is discretionary and will be overturned on appeal only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion.” In re Dependency of A.C., 74 Wn.

2023Id. at 655 .

2018In Wilber, the undisputed medical evidence established Wilber's "fifth intervertebral disc ruptured." Wilber, 61 Wn.2d at 441 .

1972In Kelly v. The Vogue, 21 Wn.2d 785 , 153 P.2d 277 (1944), where an employee was injured on the stairway of an employer, assumption of the risk was held to be no defense in the event the jury found the injury was caused by violation of a statutory duty to provide all stairways with “suitable handrails” and to keep them in “good and safe repair.” In the Kelly case, an instruction was approved which informed the jury that a plaintiff assumed no risk in connection with a defendant’s violation, if any, of an ordinance..

1972In Kelly v. The Vogue, 21 Wn.2d 785 , 153 P.2d 277 (1944), where an employee was injured on the stairway of an employer, assumption of the risk was held to be no defense in the event the jury found the injury was caused by violation of a statutory duty to provide all stairways with “suitable handrails” and to keep them in “good and safe repair.” In the Kelly case, an instruction was approved which informed the jury that a plaintiff assumed no risk in connection with a defendant’s violation, if any, of an ordinance..

1956Unfortunately, a close analysis of the cases as to the particular wording of the contract involved, the surrounding circumstances, and the subject of the bailment in each particular case does not disclose any distinction which would explain, much less warrant, the differences in the results.’ ” (Italics ours.) In respondent’s brief and in his oral argument relative to the appellant’s petition for rehearing, reference is made to the following cases: Alaska Coast Co. v. Alaska Barge Co., 79 Wash. 216 , 140 Pac. 334 ; Bratt v. Poole, 105 Wash. 565 , 178 Pac. 638 ; and Locomotive Exchange v. Rucke

1956Unfortunately, a close analysis of the cases as to the particular wording of the contract involved, the surrounding circumstances, and the subject of the bailment in each particular case does not disclose any distinction which would explain, much less warrant, the differences in the results.’ ” (Italics ours.) In respondent’s brief and in his oral argument relative to the appellant’s petition for rehearing, reference is made to the following cases: Alaska Coast Co. v. Alaska Barge Co., 79 Wash. 216 , 140 Pac. 334 ; Bratt v. Poole, 105 Wash. 565 , 178 Pac. 638 ; and Locomotive Exchange v. Rucke

1956Unfortunately, a close analysis of the cases as to the particular wording of the contract involved, the surrounding circumstances, and the subject of the bailment in each particular case does not disclose any distinction which would explain, much less warrant, the differences in the results.’ ” (Italics ours.) In respondent’s brief and in his oral argument relative to the appellant’s petition for rehearing, reference is made to the following cases: Alaska Coast Co. v. Alaska Barge Co., 79 Wash. 216 , 140 Pac. 334 ; Bratt v. Poole, 105 Wash. 565 , 178 Pac. 638 ; and Locomotive Exchange v. Rucke

1956Unfortunately, a close analysis of the cases as to the particular wording of the contract involved, the surrounding circumstances, and the subject of the bailment in each particular case does not disclose any distinction which would explain, much less warrant, the differences in the results.’ ” (Italics ours.) In respondent’s brief and in his oral argument relative to the appellant’s petition for rehearing, reference is made to the following cases: Alaska Coast Co. v. Alaska Barge Co., 79 Wash. 216 , 140 Pac. 334 ; Bratt v. Poole, 105 Wash. 565 , 178 Pac. 638 ; and Locomotive Exchange v. Rucke

1956Unfortunately, a close analysis of the cases as to the particular wording of the contract involved, the surrounding circumstances, and the subject of the bailment in each particular case does not disclose any distinction which would explain, much less warrant, the differences in the results.’ ” (Italics ours.) In respondent’s brief and in his oral argument relative to the appellant’s petition for rehearing, reference is made to the following cases: Alaska Coast Co. v. Alaska Barge Co., 79 Wash. 216 , 140 Pac. 334 ; Bratt v. Poole, 105 Wash. 565 , 178 Pac. 638 ; and Locomotive Exchange v. Rucke

1956Unfortunately, a close analysis of the cases as to the particular wording of the contract involved, the surrounding circumstances, and the subject of the bailment in each particular case does not disclose any distinction which would explain, much less warrant, the differences in the results.’ ” (Italics ours.) In respondent’s brief and in his oral argument relative to the appellant’s petition for rehearing, reference is made to the following cases: Alaska Coast Co. v. Alaska Barge Co., 79 Wash. 216 , 140 Pac. 334 ; Bratt v. Poole, 105 Wash. 565 , 178 Pac. 638 ; and Locomotive Exchange v. Rucke

1948Cornwall v. Cornwall, 13 Wn. (2d) 594, 126 P. (2d) 52 ; Werner v. Werner, 18 Wn. (2d) 875, 138 P. (2d) 889 ; Holm v. Holm, 27 Wn. (2d) 456, 178 P. (2d) 725 . *201 A study of the 362 pages of the statement of facts, taken into consideration with the oral decision of the trial court made at the close of the hearing, convinces us that the court did not abuse its discretion, but that it very carefully went into all phases of the value of the property, the use to which it should be put, the business situation that respondent would have to face, and the welfare of all the parties to the action.

1948Cornwall v. Cornwall, 13 Wn. (2d) 594, 126 P. (2d) 52 ; Werner v. Werner, 18 Wn. (2d) 875, 138 P. (2d) 889 ; Holm v. Holm, 27 Wn. (2d) 456, 178 P. (2d) 725 . *201 A study of the 362 pages of the statement of facts, taken into consideration with the oral decision of the trial court made at the close of the hearing, convinces us that the court did not abuse its discretion, but that it very carefully went into all phases of the value of the property, the use to which it should be put, the business situation that respondent would have to face, and the welfare of all the parties to the action.

1948Cornwall v. Cornwall, 13 Wn. (2d) 594, 126 P. (2d) 52 ; Werner v. Werner, 18 Wn. (2d) 875, 138 P. (2d) 889 ; Holm v. Holm, 27 Wn. (2d) 456, 178 P. (2d) 725 . *201 A study of the 362 pages of the statement of facts, taken into consideration with the oral decision of the trial court made at the close of the hearing, convinces us that the court did not abuse its discretion, but that it very carefully went into all phases of the value of the property, the use to which it should be put, the business situation that respondent would have to face, and the welfare of all the parties to the action.