Case law

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.

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.

State ex rel. Griffith v. Newland

37 Wash. 428 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1905

electors, and is in conflict with the provis ons of § 12, of art. 1, of the constitution, which provides tl at “no law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class )f citizens . . . privileges or immunities which, up … All the electors in the district certain y and clearly are upon the same terms, and are eligible to the employment.

Murray v. State

62 Wash. 2d 619 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1963

The letter requires the successful bidder to establish a private “mortgagor-builder” corporation under the laws of the state of Delaware, and to qualify it to do business in the state involved. … “The mere fact that the United States owns all the capital stock of these corporations is not alone sufficient to endow them with sovereign immunity, nor do they acquire such immunity merely because they are the medium through

State v. City of Seattle

94 Wash. 2d 162 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1980

It also established procedures for nominating, designating, and preserving both areas of the city and individual structures as landmarks. … The legislature has clearly shown its intent that the decision-making power as to preservation or destruction of Tract buildings rests with the Board of Regents. See Lend v. Seattle, 63 Wn.2d 664 , 388 P.2d 926 (1964).

State v. Bryant

146 Wash. 2d 90 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 2002

While the ability of the government to compel testimony in exchange for a grant of immunity is now well established, this formal immunity process is cloaked with a high degree of constitutional protection. … Snohomish County had the right to establish that it had obtained evidence wholly independent of the immune statements.

Abel v. Firs Bible & Missionary Conference

57 Wash. 2d 853 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1961

When the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se is clearly applicable, an agency is established without reference to the right of control. … This immunity of the statute, however, is not available to the Firs because it cannot bring itself within the statutory provisions.

Herriott v. City of Seattle

81 Wash. 2d 48 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1972

The act establishes a quota system. Section 1151 (a) sets numerical limitations on the total number of immigrants that may be lawfully admitted. … Stout, Privileges and Immunities of National Citizenship and the Suffrage in the States, 14 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 48 , 69 (1952).

Lundgren v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe

187 Wash. 2d 857 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2017

Both parties recognized the fence as the boundary line and that it had clearly been on the property for much longer than the necessary 10 years. … County of Yakima, Anderson, and Smale establish the principle that our superior courts have subject matter jurisdiction over in rem proceedings in certain situations where claims of sovereign immunity are asserted. II.

Tardiff v. Shoreline School District

68 Wash. 2d 164 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1966

If the two acts are so clearly inconsistent with and repugnant to each other that they cannot by fair and reasonable construction be reconciled ánd both be given effect. … Nothing is stated therein which might have any bearing upon the statute establishing immunity of school districts.

Babcock v. Mason County Fire Dist. No. 6

30 P.3d 1261 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2001

In this case, as in those cases, privity was established by the nature of the contact. … State, 118 Wash.2d 195, 229 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992). [15] Because of the discretionary and policy making functions of government, I would retain our absolute and qualified immunity jurisprudence.

Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation

130 Wash. 2d 862 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1996

consider in personam jurisdiction, immunity and *877 waiver. … State of Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009 , 1014-16 (8th Cir. 1981) (tribe waived sovereign immunity by intervening in a law suit); McClendon, 885 F.2d at 630 ("Initiation of a lawsuit necessarily establishes [tribal] consent to the

Freehe v. Freehe

81 Wash. 2d 183 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1972

The case which apparently established the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity in Washington is Schultz v. Christopher, 65 Wash. 496 , 118 P. 629 (1911). … The tortfeasor, though perhaps not quite himself or herself at the time of the tort, is clearly not one with the injured spouse.

Sutton v. Spokane Union Stockyards

124 Wash. 209 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1923

. — The respondent is conducting a public stockyard in which it is handling an interstate business, and, pursuant to the requirements of the Federal government, has provided an immunizing and vaccinating pen for the treatment … There was no proof offered, nor is there any suggestion, that the veterinarian selected by the respondent is not thoroughly qualified and competent.

M.W. v. Department of Social & Health Services

149 Wash. 2d 589 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2003

In analyzing whether the caseworker had qualified *600 immunity, the Lesley court reasoned she did not because she failed to follow established procedures when evaluating the Mongolian spots. Lesley, 83 Wn. … This reading of Lesley confuses the analysis for qualified immunity with the scope of the duty.

Amburn v. Daly

81 Wash. 2d 241 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1972

Under the new Law you may establish a valid claim if you worked in Washington during the 1969 calendar year and earned at least $1,050. … As stated before, the presumption is against such an application where no such legislative intent is clearly expressed or to be implied.

Pierce v. Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital Ass'n

43 Wash. 2d 162 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1953

If the facts tending to warrant a public policy declaration in favor of immunity were clearly established and well-recognized, we would expect to find general agreement among the courts in favor of such a policy. … In Rhode Island, the immunity rule is established by statute.- In Maryland, the court-made immunity rule is apparently overcome by statute in cases where the institution carries liability insurance. See Thomas v.

Texas Company v. Cohn

8 Wash. 2d 360 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1941

In considering whether, in a particular case, a legislative classification exceeds the constitutional powers of the lawmakers, it should be borne in mind that there is a well-established distinction between tax laws and regulatory … As we have pointed out, those two cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

Alpental Community Club, Inc. v. SGS

154 Wash. 2d 313 · Washington Supreme Court · May 12, 2005

Defendants are not immune from liability for nuisance pursuant to RCW Ch. 7.48 since the forest practice activity of defendants was not established prior to the establishment of the ACC residential subdivision. [7] The trial … When you read that definition, it clearly does not encompass the mere ownership of forest land.

American Legion Post 149 v. WASH. DEPT. OF HEALTH

192 P.3d 306 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 11, 2008

The privileges and immunities clause warrants a separate constitutional analysis. … However, the term "privileges and immunities" under the state constitution is defined in accordance with the federal constitution's privileges and immunities clause. Id. at 813, 83 P.3d 419 ; State v.