Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.185

"Employee."

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
"Employee" shall have the same meaning as "worker" when the context would so indicate, and shall include all officers of the state, state agencies, counties, municipal corporations, or other public corporations, or political subdivisions.
[ 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 16; 1972 ex.s. c 43 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1977–2012 · leading case: Doty v. Town of South Prairie
Doty v. Town of South Prairie (2005) wash · cites it 5× “” RCW 51.08.185. It then goes on to define “ ‘[w]orker’ ” as “every person in this state who is engaged in the employment of an employer.”
Doty v. Town of South Prairie (2005) wash · cites it 5× “" RCW 51.08.185. It then goes on to define "`[w]orker'" as "every person in this state who is engaged in the employment of an employer .”
Jepson v. Department of Labor & Industries (1977) wash · cites it 4× “" Finally, RCW 51.08.185 defines "employee" as a "workman' when the context would so indicate .”
Bolin v. Kitsap County (1990) wash “RCW 51.08.185. The statute defines "every person .”
Doty v. Town of South Prairie (2004) washctapp “180(1) (emphasis added); RCW 51.08.185. And the Act defines “employment” as “services performed by an individual for remuneration.”
Doty v. Town of South Prairie (2004) washctapp “180 (emphasis added); RCW 51.08.185. And the Act defines "employment" as "services performed by an individual for remuneration.”
Xenith Group, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2012) washctapp “RCW 51.08.185. Sprint Spectrum, LP/Sprint PCS v.”
Xenith Group v. Dept. of Labor and Indus. (2012) washctapp “[35] RCW 51.08.185. [36] Sprint Spectrum, L.P.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.