Legal Opinion

Danzer v. Department of Labor & Industries

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 8, 2000No. 24711-9-IIPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeinfeld, J.

The Department of Labor and Industries assessed a penalty against Edward L. Danzer, doing business as Danzco, for failure to abate a previously cited violation of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals affirmed the penalty assessment and the superior court affirmed.

Finding that the Board correctly considered the 1995 failure to abate citation, that Danzco was not denied due process or equal protection rights, and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion as to the amount of the assessment, we affirm.

FACTS

Danzco manufactures…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Millay v. CamWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Adkins v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AM.Washington Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Millay v. CamWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Erection Co. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  5. World Wide Video, Inc. v. City of TukwilaWashington Supreme Court · 1991

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Erection Co. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  2. BD Roofing, Inc. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  3. BD Roofing, Inc. v. STATE DOL AND INDUSTRIESCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  4. Martinez Melgoza & Associates, Inc. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  5. Netversant Wireless Systems v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API