Case law

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. Martinez

85 Wash. 2d 671 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1975

In assessing this claim, the touchstone for our analysis is the due process clause which commands that the prohibitions of a penal statute be clearly drawn and defined as to standards of guilt. … Even if such picketing is disruptive of the educational environment or violent, the parents are immunized from prosecution by the terms of RCW 9.87.010(13).

Columbia Steel Co. v. State

34 Wash. 2d 700 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1949

Plaintiff has qualified, under the laws of the state of Washington, to carry on that portion of its business which consists of the sale of iron and steel products in this state. … All of the facts relied upon by appellant in this connection were clearly set forth in the pleadings which were before us on the previous appeal, and that these facts were understood by the court, and considered, clearly

Eggert v. City of Seattle

81 Wash. 2d 840 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1973

of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental .. . … It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. . . .

Employco Personnel Services, Inc. v. City of Seattle

117 Wash. 2d 606 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1991

Second, it argues that the limitation on liability clearly applies to damages from power interruptions which allegedly resulted from the City's negligence. … The Legislature in RCW 35.21.415 declined to grant immunity to cities or towns. 11 In viewing the statutory scheme as a whole, the conclusion is reached that the Legislature clearly did not intend that the City of Seattle

Babcock v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 17 OF CLALLAM CTY.

57 Wash. 2d 578 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1961

All of the elements established by the rules must be present before a legislative enactment can be found to have been impliedly repealed by a subsequent act. … Among these rules are (1) that the present legislation must evidently be intended to supersede the prior legislation on the subject, and (2) that both acts will be allowed to stand unless *581 they are clearly inconsistent

Samuelson v. Freeman

75 Wash. 2d 894 · Washington Supreme Court · May 8, 1969

This standard of care is that established in an area coextensive with the medical and professional means available in those centers that are readily accessible for appropriate treatment of the patient. … Thus, Lindquist was clearly the declared law of this jurisdiction at the commencement and throughout the trial of the instant case.

Lukich v. Department of Labor & Industries

176 Wash. 221 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1934

1613, and article 1 thereof reads as follows: “There shall be reciprocally full and entire liberty of commerce and navigation between the citizens and subjects of the two high contracting powers, who shall be at liberty to establish … True, the word “industry” *231 is used, but in tbe context it clearly appears that this word was employed in connection with commerce and not with labor.

Jewels v. City of Bellingham

183 Wash. 2d 388 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2015

It ruled that Jewels had failed to establish a material issue of fact that the water diverter was latent: I agree that when it wasn’t painted, it wasn’t as obvious as the yellow speed bump. … obvious and clearly visible.

Hauber v. Yakima County

147 Wash. 2d 655 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2002

The legislature clearly intended to forge a compromise similar to the one in the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. … The Legislature clearly intended for such agreements to be formal and specific. See also WAC 118-30-060 (detailing requirements for emergency management plans and mutual aid plans).

Brame v. St. Regis Paper Co.

97 Wash. 2d 748 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1982

It contained no clear expression that General Mechanical waived its immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act. RCW Title 51. b. … This clearly does not rise above the level of mere unsupported allegations. CR 56(e). LaPlante v. State, 85 Wn.2d 154, 158 , 531 P.2d 299 (1975).

Richmond v. Thompson

922 P.2d 1343 · 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 , 241 P. 970 .

Norg v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2023

These limitations clearly distinguish Cummins from the case presented here. … Moreover, an examination of the Norgs’ claim clearly shows that they do not rely on the E911 statute.

Kottler v. State

136 Wash. 2d 437 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1998

To qualify for this exception the original party must be fault-free and both parties to the contribution action must have been defendants against whom judgment was entered in the underlying action. … (c) Nothing in this section shall affect any cause of action arising from the manufacture or marketing of a fungible product in a generic form which contains no clearly identifiable shape, color, or marking.

State v. Brown

35 Wash. 2d 379 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1949

Counsel for appellant then, in his argument to the jury, ridiculed the suggestion that appellant made such an airplane trip, and argued that the alibi as to the October 15th offense was clearly established by the canceled … We do not believe that appellant was prejudiced by the prosecuting attorney’s incorrect statement that the law gave Williams immunity. Williams believed he was testifying pursuant to immunity accorded by statute.

Hanson v. Carmona

Washington Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2023

specified height spanning public highways, or a statute providing conditional immunity for the release of information regarding sex offenders, or a statute granting qualified immunity to municipal employees … I recognize that the terms have not always been clearly defined.

Borst v. Borst

41 Wash. 2d 642 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1952

The court cited no authority and did not represent that its view expressed any established common-law rule. … In view of the foregoing summary of the law as it had developed up to that time, the statement in that opinion that “at common law it is well established that a minor child cannot sue a parent for a tort,” is clearly erroneous

McCarver v. Manson Park and Recreation District

92 Wash. 2d 370 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1979

Although the record fails to clearly identify the owner of the parkland and water areas (there is some indication that ownership is in the United States Government), it is clear that Manson Park has the exclusive right of … Clearly, the statute, as amended, includes public landowners and occupiers within the recreational use immunity from liability.

GRANT CTY. FIRE PROT. DIST. v. City of Moses Lake

150 Wash. 2d 791 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2004

The property owners have not established any right that constitutes a privilege within the meaning of the privileges and immunities clause. … than every public benefit established by positive law."

Riddoch v. State

68 Wash. 329 · Washington Supreme Court · May 1, 1912

Municipal corporations enjoy their immunity from liability for torts only in so far as they partake of the state’s immunity, and only in the exercise of those governmental powers and duties imposed upon them as representing … This fact is clearly pointed out and the decision limited to that single question by the subsequent case of Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151 .