Case law

State v. Nicolls

61 Wash. 142 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1910

In the statute before us no qualifying words are employed. One who'sells, gives, or barters intoxicating liquor to an Indian or one of mixed blood, is guilty. … The fact of selling being established, the law supplies the element of intent.

Furfaro v. City of Seattle

27 P.3d 1160 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2001

The Court of Appeals also recognized, in its discussion of the qualified immunity issue, that the warrant requirement was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity is appropriate in this case precisely because the right violated was not clearly established: "The contours of the right to perform a nude stage dance without fear of warrantless arrest are not clearly

Hocker v. Woody

95 Wash. 2d 822 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1981

They have, however, a qualified immunity so that they may exercise their discretion without undue timidity. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 , 94 S. Ct. 1683 (1974); Wood v. … The petitioner's constitutional rights were therefore not clearly established at the time of the conduct and she could recover only if Woody's actions showed a malicious intent.

Entila v. Cook

187 Wash. 2d 480 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2017

RCW 51.08.013 then establishes employer immunity and defines “acting in the course of employment.” … These statutory provisions demonstrate that benefit eligibility and employer immunity are analytically tied—if an injured worker qualifies for benefits, the employer cannot be sued. ¶7 Although RCW 51.08.013 establishes benefit

Jones v. State, Dept. of Health

242 P.3d 825 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

Qualified immunity ¶ 27 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions" are immune from § 1983 suits "if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against … clearly established law."

Assurance Wireless USA, LP v. Dep't of Revenue

544 P.3d 471 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2024

But here, Assurance accrues a legal claim to $9.25 for each qualifying low-income consumer that it provides services to, and the payments are clearly for the services. 47 C.F.R. § 54.407 (reimbursement to carrier “based … findings concerning the establishment of USAC.”

State v. Groom

947 P.2d 240 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1997

Br. of Pet'r at 13 (discussing qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); Groom, 80 Wash.App. at 722 n. 2, 911 P.2d 403 (noting that in the civil context, qualified immunity is available unless, among other things, the … And, as discussed above, we reject Defendant's claim that the statute must incorporate qualified immunity concepts—civil qualified immunity has no place in this criminal prosecution.

Taggart v. State

118 Wash. 2d 195 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1992

Qualified Immunity for Parole Officers' Supervisory Decisions. … State, 116 Wn.2d 596 , 809 P.2d 143 (1991) suggests the parameters of this qualified immunity.

State Farm General Insurance v. Emerson

102 Wash. 2d 477 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1984

Cain's suggested reading adds words to the clause which are clearly not present. The words "this policy does not apply ... to bodily injury to any insured" are not qualified. … The term "such bodily injury" is qualified in the preceding sentence with the words, "to which this insurance applies."

State v. City of Sunnyside

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2024

Courts determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity by considering (1) whether the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right was “clearly established” at … No. 101205-5 the individual respondents engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of a clearly established right. Respondents are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Roy v. City of Everett

118 Wash. 2d 352 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1992

Viewing the statute as a whole and considering the legislative intent that underlies the act, RCW 10.99.070 clearly grants qualified immunity to peace officers for conduct arising out of incidents of domestic violence. … Conversely, the phrase "in good faith" clearly limits the scope of immunity that the Legislature accords to peace officers under the domestic violence act.

Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County

119 Wash. 2d 91 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

State, 103 Wn.2d 144, 153 , 690 P.2d 1163 (1984) (municipality enjoys the qualified immunity of its police officers). But cf. Babcock v. … State, supra at 619-22, where we held that the State does not get the benefit of the qualified or absolute immunity of its Department of Social and Health Services caseworkers.

State v. Groom

133 Wash. 2d 679 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1997

See Supplemental Br. of Pet’r at 13 (discussing qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); Groom, 80 Wn. … And, as discussed above, we reject Defendant’s claim that the statute must incorporate qualified immunity concepts—civil qualified immunity has no place in this criminal prosecution.

Evans v. Thompson

124 Wash. 2d 435 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1994

The interest of the Department in reimbursement from the recovery from a third party, RCW 51.24.040, clearly supports that policy. … Further, the burden is on the Defendants to establish their claimed immunity as coemployees. CR 8(c); Superior Asphalt & Concrete Co. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 19 Wn.

Coast Pacific Trading, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

105 Wash. 2d 912 · Washington Supreme Court · May 22, 1986

The Department of Revenue established a rule to define the circumstances in which a taxpayer can qualify for an "export sales" exemption from Washington's business and occupation tax. See WAC 458-20-193C. … The parties agree that in this enactment the Department intended to codify *917 the requirements for immunity established by United States Supreme Court decisions.

F. D. Rich Co. v. State

79 Wash. 2d 296 · Washington Supreme Court · May 13, 1971

qualify these corporations to do business in. the state of Washington.. … The plaintiff suggests that this language clearly indicates that the United States undertook a contractual obligation to pay.

Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co.

179 Wash. 2d 684 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2014

The legislature has clearly decided that the inducement of immunity is necessary to encourage recreational use, i.e., the type of public use that is of concern under the statute. ¶61 The court should hold that to come within … Initially, it is not true that any activity on land that is or might be recreational use under the statute automatically qualifies for the immunity.

Twelker v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

88 Wash. 2d 473 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1977

The issue presented on appeal is whether the defense of either absolute or qualified privilege has been established by respondents as a matter of law. … We hold neither defense has been established and reverse the judgment of dismissal.

State v. Hull

78 Wash. 2d 984 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1971

Certainly they would not be “qualified person[s] to discharge the duties of [the prosecuting attorney].” RCW 36.27.030. … Clearly, one cannot grant or promise that which he has no power or authority to give.

Davis v. State

144 Wash. 2d 612 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2001

’s recreational use immunity statutes. … immunity statutes.