de novo standard in Washington

2025We reverse if “under a clearly erroneous standard, there is insufficient evidence in the record” to support the exceptional sentence; “under a de novo standard, the reasons supplied by the sentencing court do not justify a departure from the standard range”; or “under an abuse of discretion standard, the sentence is clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.” France, 176 Wn.

2021To reverse an exceptional sentence, we must conclude that: (1) under a clearly erroneous standard, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence; (2) under a de novo standard, the reasons supplied by the sentencing court do not justify a departure from the standard range; or (3) under an abuse of discretion standard, the sentence is clearly excessive or clearly too lenient. 6 No. 80864-8-I/7 State v. France, 176 Wn.

2026At this de novo hearing, the superior court was to determine “whether the facts before the juvenile ‘session’ of the superior court in the first instance warranted and justified the transfer for criminal prosecution.” Id.

2015Dillenburg requires "a de novo hearing before the superior court as to the propriety of the challenged transfer, i.e., whether the facts before the juvenile 'session' of the superior court in the ftrst instance warranted and justifted the transfer for criminal prosecution." Dillenburg, 70 Wn.2d at 355 .

2021Law, 154 Wn.2d at 93 .

2020State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 110 P.3d 717 (2005).

2024Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358, 368 , 357 P.3d 1080 (2015) (citing Folsom, 135 Wn.2d at 662-633)). 8 8 However, when trial courts exclude evidence because it was untimely disclosed, it must consider the factors from Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 , 933 P.2d 1036 7 85610-3-I/8 Causation Peak’s complaint alleges that “he attempted to descend the port ladder from the car deck to EOS and slipped on a mat that was on the upper landing, forcing him to slide down the stairway and land on his back.” WSDOT agreed with the trial court that the crux of the summary judgment motion was the issu

2024Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358, 368 , 357 P.3d 1080 (2015) (citing Folsom, 135 Wn.2d at 662-633)). 8 8 However, when trial courts exclude evidence because it was untimely disclosed, it must consider the factors from Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 , 933 P.2d 1036 7 85610-3-I/8 Causation Peak’s complaint alleges that “he attempted to descend the port ladder from the car deck to EOS and slipped on a mat that was on the upper landing, forcing him to slide down the stairway and land on his back.” WSDOT agreed with the trial court that the crux of the summary judgment motion was the issu

2023For these reasons, we apply the de novo standard of review discussed in cases such as Dolan v. King County, 172 Wn.2d 299, 310 , 258 P.3d 20 (2011). 16 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

2023For these reasons, we apply the de novo standard of review discussed in cases such as Dolan v. King County, 172 Wn.2d 299, 310 , 258 P.3d 20 (2011). 16 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

2018But we do not defer to a trial court’s discretion when it resolves legal questions, and accordingly “the de novo standard is better applied.” State v. Garza, 150 Wn.2d 360, 366 , 77 P.3d 347 (2003).

2018But we do not defer to a trial court's discretion when it resolves legal questions, and accordingly "the de novo standard is better applied." State v. Garza , 150 Wash.2d 360 , 366, 77 P.3d 347 (2003).

2018But we do not defer to a trial court’s discretion when it resolves legal questions, and accordingly “the de novo standard is better applied.” State v. Garza, 150 Wn.2d 360, 366 , 77 P.3d 347 (2003).

2018But we do not defer to a trial court's discretion when it resolves legal questions, and accordingly "the de novo standard is better applied." State v. Garza , 150 Wash.2d 360 , 366, 77 P.3d 347 (2003).

2014Defendants may elect to have this determination made upon the resolution of the [S]tate's appeal of this issue." 12 See RAP 2.4(g) ("An appeal from a decision on the merits of a case brings up for review an award of attorney fees entered after the appellate court accepts review of the decision on the merits."). -8- NO. 69318-2-1/9 STANDARD OF REVIEW "When the trial court considers matters outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we review the trial court's ruling under the de novo standard of review for summary judgment."13 We review the facts and reasona

2013Moreover, because CARG and the Estate dispute CARG’s and the Bank’s intent in assigning the debt — a question of fact — dismissal was inappropriate. ¶16 “When the trial court considers matters outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we review the trial court’s ruling under the de novo standard of review for summary judgment.” Freestone Capital Partners, LP v. MKA Real Estate Opportunity Fund I, LLC, 155 Wn.

2004State v. Borg, 145 Wash.2d 329, 336 , 36 P.3d 546 (2001).

2003RCW 9.94A.585(4) (formerly RCW 9.94A.210(4) (2000)); State v. Borg, 145 Wn.2d 329, 336 , 36 P.3d 546 (2001); State v. Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514, 517-18 , 723 P.2d 1117 (1986).

2004State v. Borg, 145 Wash.2d 329, 336 , 36 P.3d 546 (2001).

2003RCW 9.94A.585(4) (formerly RCW 9.94A.210(4) (2000)); State v. Borg, 145 Wn.2d 329, 336 , 36 P.3d 546 (2001); State v. Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514, 517-18 , 723 P.2d 1117 (1986).

2020State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 560-61 , 192 P.3d 345 (2008).

2020State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 560-61 , 192 P.3d 345 (2008).

2020State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 560-61 , 192 P.3d 345 (2008).

2020State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 560-61 , 192 P.3d 345 (2008).

2018Jury Instruction Wang argues jury instruction 17, defining robbery, "relieved the State of its burden to prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and thereby violated [his] due process rights."24 We review errors of law in jury instructions under the de novo standard.25 "Jury instructions are proper when they permit the parties to argue their theories of 23 RP (Dec. 8, 2016) at 1354-55. 24 Appellant's Br. at 25. 25 State v. Barnes, 153 Wn.2d 378, 382 , 103 P.3d 1219 (2005). 9 No. 76369-5-1/10 the case, do not mislead the jury, and properly inform the jury on the applicable l

2006State v. Barnes, 153 Wn.2d 378, 382 , 103 P.3d 1219 (2005). ¶13 Here, the jury first asked the court if a "third party [is] included in stalking?” and “can you stalk a party [through] a third person?” CP at 123.

2018Jury Instruction Wang argues jury instruction 17, defining robbery, "relieved the State of its burden to prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and thereby violated [his] due process rights."24 We review errors of law in jury instructions under the de novo standard.25 "Jury instructions are proper when they permit the parties to argue their theories of 23 RP (Dec. 8, 2016) at 1354-55. 24 Appellant's Br. at 25. 25 State v. Barnes, 153 Wn.2d 378, 382 , 103 P.3d 1219 (2005). 9 No. 76369-5-1/10 the case, do not mislead the jury, and properly inform the jury on the applicable l

2006State v. Barnes, 153 Wn.2d 378, 382 , 103 P.3d 1219 (2005). ¶13 Here, the jury first asked the court if a "third party [is] included in stalking?” and “can you stalk a party [through] a third person?” CP at 123.

2017This standard of review is consistent with the requirement that evidence and inferences are viewed in favor of the nonmoving party, and the standard of review is consistent with the requirement that the appellate court conduct the same inquiry as the trial court. folsom, 135 Wn.2d at 663 (citing Lamon v McDonnell Doualas Corn., 91 Wn.2d 345, 349 , 588 P.2d 1346 (1979) and Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n v Tvdinas 125 Wn.2d 337, 341 , 883 P.2d 1383 (1994)) -16- No. 74636-7-1/17 B.

2017This standard of review is consistent with the requirement that evidence and inferences are viewed in favor of the nonmoving party, and the standard of review is consistent with the requirement that the appellate court conduct the same inquiry as the trial court. folsom, 135 Wn.2d at 663 (citing Lamon v McDonnell Doualas Corn., 91 Wn.2d 345, 349 , 588 P.2d 1346 (1979) and Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n v Tvdinas 125 Wn.2d 337, 341 , 883 P.2d 1383 (1994)) -16- No. 74636-7-1/17 B.

2008We mean no disrespect. [3] The pagination of the exemplar appears to be different from the documents that Jack and Bernice received, based on the portions they submitted, but there is no evidence showing that the relevant content of the documents varied. [4] The Oltmans contend, however, that under Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., 160 Wash.2d 826 , 161 P.3d 1016 (2007), a de novo standard of review applies to all questions relating to the forum selection clause because they are questions of law.

2008The Oltmans contend, however, that under Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., 160 Wn.2d 826 , 161 P.3d 1016 (2007), a de novo standard of review applies to all questions relating to the forum selection clause because they are questions of law.

2014App. 643, 653 , 230 P.3d 625 (2010) (citing CTVC of Haw.

2013App. 643, 653 , 230 P.3d 625 (2010).

2005App. 747, 757 , 90 P.3d 1110 (2004), we recently held that where a juror is “excused during deliberations for statements she made during deliberations,” a defendant’s constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury are at question, and we employ a de novo standard of review.

2005But as noted by Johnson in her reply brief, in State v. Elmore, 121 Wash.App. 747, 757 , 90 P.3d 1110 (2004), we recently held that where a juror is "excused during deliberations for statements she made during deliberations," a defendant's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury are at question, and we employ a de novo standard of review.

2004Dep’t, 113 Wn.2d 374, 377 , 779 P.2d 715 (1989) (“With mixed questions of law and fact, the court determines the correct law independent of the agency’s decision and then applies it to the facts as found by the agency.”); Johnson v. Dep’t of Employment Sec., 112 Wn.2d 172, 175 , 769 P.2d 305 (1989) (“Because the resolution of mixed law and fact issues does not require ‘reweighing evidence of credibility and demeanor’, this court reviews them under a de novo standard.” (quoting Sellers, 97 Wn.2d at 330 ))).

2004Dep't, 113 Wash.2d 374, 377 , 779 P.2d 715 (1989) ("With mixed questions of law and fact, the court determines the correct law independent of the agency's decision and then applies it to the facts as found by the agency.") and Johnson v. Dep't of Employment Sec., 112 Wash.2d 172, 175 , 769 P.2d 305 (1989) ("Because the resolution of mixed law and fact issues does not require `reweighing evidence of credibility and demeanor', this court reviews them under a de novo standard." (quoting Sellers, 97 Wash.2d at 330 , 646 P.2d 113 ))).

2001Grimes v. Lakeside Indus., 78 Wn.

2001Grimes v. Lakeside Industries, 78 Wash. App. 554, 560 , 897 P.2d 431 (1995); RCW 51.52.115.

1968This result would render meaningless the de novo hearing provided for in Dillenburg, supra, the stated purpose of which is to “determine whether, under all the circumstances, the petitioner should have been dealt with as a juvenile .” In re Sheppard v. Rhay, 73 Wn.2d 734, 737 , 440 P.2d 422 (1968).

1968This result would render meaningless the de novo hearing provided for in Dillenburg, supra, the stated purpose of which is to “determine whether, under all the circumstances, the petitioner should have been dealt with as a juvenile .” In re Sheppard v. Rhay, 73 Wn.2d 734, 737 , 440 P.2d 422 (1968).

2025Kinney v. Cook, 159 Wn.2d 837, 842 , 154 P.3 206 (2007).

2014Kinney v. Cook, 159 Wn.2d 837, 842 , 154 P.3d 206 (2007).

2025Kinney v. Cook, 159 Wn.2d 837, 842 , 154 P.3 206 (2007).

2014Kinney v. Cook, 159 Wn.2d 837, 842 , 154 P.3d 206 (2007).