Lancaster v. Perry, 127 Wn. App. 826, 113 P.3d 1, (2005) – upholding the trial court’s determination to exclude opposing party’s proposed expert medical witnesses at trial on grounds that he failed to adequately identify such experts in a timely fashion as required by local court rules and to disclose such expert opinions as required by local court rules.  This is the first published Washington decision where a party’s experts were excluded directly for violation of a local court disclosure rule.

Barrett v. Freise, 119 Wn. App. 823; 82 P.3d 1179( 2003) – upholding trial court determination that attorney had fully performed and was entitled to his whole contingency fee, in the face of claims of legal malpractice, conflicts of interest and breach of fiduciary duty.

Taylor v. Shigaki, 84 Wn. App. 723; 930 P.2d 340 (1997), pet. den. 132 Wn.2d 1009, 940 P.2d 654 (1997) – first case in Washington jurisprudence where attorney who had substantially performed was determined to have earned his full contingency fee, in face of arguments of misfeasance

Hein v. Taco Bell, 60 Wn. App. 325; 803 P.2d 329; (1991) – Court determines that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over foreign corporation running fast food restaurant in state based upon the amount, kind, and continuity of activities carried on by the fast food restaurant within the state, for tort committed outside the state.