Case law

Doty v. Town of South Prairie

120 P.3d 941 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2005

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. … In short, pension benefits do not qualify as consideration like in nature to IIA wages.

Keller v. City of Spokane

146 Wash. 2d 237 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2002

“Rather, recovery is now permitted where it was previously denied after liability has been established.” Id. … App. at 267-68 (interpreting Hansen as qualifying municipalities’ duty to apply only to those using roadways in proper manner).

Minton v. Ralston Purina Co.

47 P.3d 556 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2002

In this case, Interstate qualified as a self-insurer in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Ch. 51.14 RCW. … However, Interstate, as the parent corporation, would be immune from suit by a Continental employee.

Washington State School Directors Ass'n v. Department of Labor & Industries

82 Wash. 2d 367 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1973

The provision in question is RCW 51.14.020, which provides: (1) An employer may qualify as a self-insurer by establishing to the director’s satisfaction that he has sufficient financial ability to make certain the prompt … Neither the equal protection clause nor the privileges and immunities clause requires perfection in legislative classification.

Minton v. Ralston Purina Co.

146 Wash. 2d 385 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2002

In this case, Interstate qualified as a self-insurer in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Ch. 51.14 RCW. … However, Interstate, as the parent corporation, would be immune from suit by a Continental employee.

Mission Springs Inc. v. City of Spokane

954 P.2d 250 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1998

Municipalities enjoy no qualified immunity from suit. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980); Robinson v. … City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980). [22] The trial court did not address qualified immunity; neither should we.

Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. BRAZIER CONSTR.

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

STATE IMMUNITY FROM LIMITATION PERIODS [1] The State, acting in its sovereign capacity, is immune from the application of limitation periods to actions brought for the benefit of the State. Tacoma v. … Clearly this would frustrate the policy of settling estates and distributing a decedent's property to designated heirs.

Jewels v. City Of Bellingham

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2015

It ruled that Jewels had failed to establish a material ' . . … obvious and clearly visible.

Babcock v. State

112 Wash. 2d 83 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1989

Ct. 1108 (1983). 2 *98 The defendants contend that these cases establish two separate grounds of immunity. … The Defendants in This Case Are Immune In deciding whether immunity is appropriate in this case, the question is whether the proceedings established for dependency cases by RCW 13.34 are adversarial proceedings in need of

Washington State Republican Party v. Public Disclosure Commission

141 Wash. 2d 245 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2000

Under this doctrine, public employees performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Ed. 2d 818 (1999) (finding *287 qualified immunity under § 1988 for state officials).

Cosro, Inc. v. Liquor Control Board

107 Wash. 2d 754 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1987

The requirements of this "privileges or immunities" clause "are in most cases at least as stringent as those of the federal equal protection clause. … To show a violation of the equal protection clause, a party must first establish that the challenged act treats unequally two similarly situated classes of people. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 423 , 69 L.

Thurston County v. Tenino Stone Quarries, Inc.

44 Wash. 351 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1906

This is true; but the nature of the subj ect-matter makes it essential that arbitrary limits should be established. … By reason of these personal guaranties and benefits, it asks a tribute toward the support of the government from those beneficiaries who are physically qualified to contribute.

State v. Chamberlain

132 Wash. 520 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1925

That Sec. 4, ch. 126 of the Laws of Washington, 1921 contravenes section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in that it abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States … An attorney and counsellor at law must be qualified according to, and admitted to practice under, the provisions of §§ 118 to 139-23, Rem. Comp. Stat. [P.

McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman

125 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1994

It is significant that when the Legislature intends to provide immunity, it does so specifically as in qualified immunity for certain recreational uses, *16 RCW 4.24.210; certain actions regarding mental illness evaluation … Thus, discretionary immunity is the rule rather than the exception. Further, the facts, not mentioned by the majority, clearly distinguish Rothschild. The claim was for property damages from a flood.

J & B Development Co. v. King County

100 Wash. 2d 299 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1983

The concept of "sovereign immunity," on the other hand, provides generally that despite the existence of apparent duty a municipal corporation, in the exercise of governmental functions, is immune from tort liability. … The concept of "sovereign immunity," while recognizing the existence of a tort, denies all liability within the limits of the immunity. W. Prosser, *304 supra.

Coburn v. Seda

101 Wash. 2d 270 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1984

The court found the statute granted immunity from discovery to medical staff committee records, stating: Literally, section 1157 establishes an immunity from discovery but not an evidentiary privilege in the sense that medical … A sponsor of the bill replied, "'[T]he answer to that question is clearly "no."'" House Journal, 42d Legislature (1971), at 877.

City of Spokane v. Coon

3 Wash. 2d 243 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1940

State, 197 Wash. 79 , 84 P. (2d) 372 , “Every reasonable presumption must be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of this statute, and the burden rests upon appellant to establish clearly its invalidity.” … I, § 12, of the state constitution, prohibiting the granting of special privileges and immunities; Kaufman v.

State v. Rhone

229 P.3d 752 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2010

A single invidiously discriminatory governmental act' is not `immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions.'" … under Batson was clearly erroneous.

Chambers-Castanes v. King County

100 Wash. 2d 275 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1983

While this may be true in a broad sense, we have consistently held that absent a clear legislative intent or clearly enunciated policy to the contrary, these duties are owed to the public at large and are unenforceable as … All we need decide is whether the facts described, if established, would entitle appellants to relief under the allegations in their complaints. (Footnote omitted.) See also Grimsby v.

State v. Rhone

168 Wash. 2d 645 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2010

Ed. 2d 196 (2005). ¶26 In my view, the trial court’s consideration of systematic discrimination in its analysis of whether Rhone established a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson was clearly erroneous. … Here, the trial court did not appear to recognize that fact and, consequently, its ruling on Rhone’s Batson challenge was clearly erroneous, having been based on a misinterpretation of the requirements to establish a prima