Case law

City of Seattle v. Gibson

96 Wash. 425 · Washington Supreme Court · May 18, 1917

St. 75, where an ordinance prohibited cemeteries in the city and county of Los Angeles, and provided that no one could establish a cemetery without the permission of the county supervisors, it was held that the ordinance-was … Persons equally qualified are entitled to the same privileges under the law, and a statute or an ordinance is void which interferes with or abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens who are equally entitled to the

Bellevue School District No. 405 v. Brazier Construction Co.

103 Wash. 2d 111 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1984

Clearly this would frustrate the policy of settling estates and distributing a decedent's property to designated heirs. … Clearly, the two statutes are neither inconsistent with, nor repugnant to, each other; one is, in fact, intended to modify the other.

Doty v. Town of South Prairie

155 Wash. 2d 527 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2005

The question on appeal was whether the inmate qualified for IIA medical benefits under RCW 51.12.035(2). Id. at 873. … Second, if a volunteer does qualify under RCW 51.12.035, it only provides eligibility for medical aid benefits. Coverage is not comprehensive, and immunity from liability does not attach.

Mancini v. City Of Tacoma

196 Wash. 2d 864 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 28, 2021

City of Paris, 378 F.3d 476, 480- 81 (5th Cir. 2004) (denying qualified immunity and finding factual dispute where plaintiffs “offered evidence that defendants did not immediately depart after learning that they were in the … Beltran-Serrano, 193 Wn.2d at 549 (citing 11 Even if the officers in this case could claim some form of immunity, “[a]n agent’s immunity from civil liability generally does not establish a defense for the

Wright v. Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp.

147 P.3d 1275 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 7, 2006

For any business enterprise established with the express purpose of promoting tribal economic development, the extension of immunity arguably furthers "federal policies intended to promote Indian tribal autonomy." … Accordingly, we adopt a bright-line rule enabling tribes to clearly demarcate which tribal corporations are protected by tribal sovereign immunity and which are not. [1] In North Sea Products, we held that tribal immunity

Finch v. Matthews

74 Wash. 2d 161 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1968

an absolute, but only a qualified or limited immunity. … In many cases the rule of immunity of the state from the doctrine of estoppel is not stated as an absolute, but merely as a qualified, immunity.

Schwartz v. King County

Washington Supreme Court · Sep 1, 2022

We hold that Schwartz has established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the bollard was dangerous within the meaning of Washington’s recreational use immunity statute. C. … This photograph clearly shows the bollard’s visibility, no matter the alleged contrast between the bollard and the pavement.

Worthington v. WestNET

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2015

However, the ability to provide for task force immunity is qualified both by the PRA and the ICA itself. 8 First, as we noted above, the PRA explicitly subordinates all other statutes to its … Second, the ICA further qualifies the contributing agencies' ability to provide immunity for their own task forces: No agreement made pursuant to this chapter relieves any public

Snyder v. Munro

106 Wash. 2d 380 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1986

Plaintiffs are qualified registered voters residing in Washington state legislative districts 19-A, 19-B, 39-A, and 39-B. … Thus, plaintiffs claim they do not enjoy the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens and qualified voters in the other districts.

State v. Tracy

158 Wash. 2d 683 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2006

We conclude that she did not establish she was a “qualifying patient” entitled to present a compassionate use defense under RCW 69.51A.010(3). … . ¶12 We turn to the meaning of “qualified physician” under the statute. Chapter 18.71 RCW establishes the statutory system which regulates physicians. Relevantly, it does two things.

Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc.

113 Wash. 2d 123 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1989

The immunity of parties and witnesses from subsequent damages liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings was well established in English common law. Cutler v. Dixon, 4 Co. Rep. 14b, 76 Eng. Rep. 886 (Q. … The present case is clearly more like Middlesex than Twelker . Byrne-Stevens was hired specifically for litigation purposes.

Andersen v. King County

158 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2006

” and whether respondents’ claim qualifies. … of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state

Silas Mason, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

188 Wash. 98 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1936

claim of immunity was upheld because the instrumentalities taxed were all so intimately connected with the necessary functions of government as to fall within the established exemption. … In a dissenting opinion, Justice Bradley, after contending that the rule established in McCulloch v.

Brown v. State

130 Wash. 2d 430 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1996

Burlington N., Inc., 105 Wn.2d 567 , 716 P.2d 855 *438 (1986) (deed in statutory form grants easement where additional language in the deed expressly and clearly limits or qualifies the interest granted); Veach v. … Rather than identifying the purpose of the conveyances, we must conduct a deed-by-deed analysis to ascertain whether the parties clearly and expressly limited or qualified the interest granted, considering the express language

Foley v. Department of Fisheries

119 Wash. 2d 783 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1992

landings until after the end of the qualifying period. … First, they argued RCW 75.30.210 violated the federal equal protection clause and the privileges and immunities clause contained in the Washington Constitution.

In re Dependency of A.M.-S.

196 Wash. 2d 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 22, 2020

Nevertheless, “[t]he power of government to compel persons to testify in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence.” Id. … For example, the Washington Constitution clearly recognizes an individual’s right to privacy with no express limitation. CONST. art. I, § 7.

Richmond v. Thompson

130 Wash. 2d 368 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1996

New York Times, however, established a qualified privilege under the First Amendment for statements concerning public officials. … I, § 5 did not grant absolute immunity. Wilson, 137 Wash. at 133 .

Lockner v. Pierce County

Washington Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2018

No. 94643-4 To qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was(1)open to members ofthe public(2)for recreational purposes and that(3)no fee was charged. … Pierce County, et al., No. 94643-4 affect immunity. Clearly, mixed public and other uses do not defeat immunity since the legislature amended RCW 4.24.210 to include land used for hydroelectric power plants.

Turngren v. King County

104 Wash. 2d 293 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1985

The case further holds that whether the sheriff disclosed sufficient material facts to establish probable cause was an issue for the jury. … Accordingly, Bender's discussion of discretionary immunity has no effect on the Turngrens' § 1983 action.

State v. Sharpless

31 Wash. 191 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1903

The legislature may also deem it desirable *197 to prescribe peculiar rules for the several occupations, and to establish distinctions in the rights, obligations, duties, and capacities of citizens.” … The act clearly applies to all incorporated cities and towns, whether incorporated now or hereafter. Ex parte Lucas, supra.