Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,759 charsRights Commission v. Cheney School District No. 30, 97 Wn.2d 118, 641 P.2d 163 (1982), this case further bolsters our conclusion. In Cheney, our Supreme Court held that an administrative tribunal had no authority to award damages for mental suffering or humiliation to employees who experienced discrimination because the governing statute, RCW 49.60.250, did not expressly or 19 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I In short, if the City of Seattle intended that the damages cap under SMC 4.20.870(B) encompass all types of non-economic damages, rather than just “emotional distress damages,” it should have drafted its ordinance accordingly. See State v. Nelson, 195 Wn. App. 261, 266, 381 P.3d 84 (2016) (“We recognize that the legislature intends to use the words it uses and intends not to use the words it does not use.”). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying SPD’s motion to amend the judgment under CR 59(h). IV SPD argues the trial court committed three errors relating to the exclusion of evidence that Sgt. Hockett’s symptoms were caused by his exposure to toxic substances during his military service before he was employed by SPD. We disagree. We review a trial court’s interpretation of evidentiary rules de novo. Matter of Welfare of M.R., 200 Wn.2d 363, 376, 518 P.3d 214 (2022). Where the trial court correctly interprets an evidentiary rule, we review its decisions under that rule for an abuse of discretion. Id. If a trial court abuses its discretion, we review for prejudice and only reverse if “within reasonable probabilities, the outcome of the trial would have been materially affected had the error not occurred.” Id. (quoting