Case law

Association of Washington Spirits & Wine Distributors v. Washington State Liquor Control Board

182 Wash. 2d 342 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 8, 2015

Applying this principle, it is clear that the provisions of RCW 66.24.055 are geared specifically toward distributors. ¶19 When we consider context, the Initiative clearly created several different licenses; each licensee … . ¶38 The Association cannot establish that the law involves a privilege or immunity.

deElche v. Jacobsen

95 Wash. 2d 237 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1980

Clearly the current rule has yielded illogical, inconsistent and unjust results. … The system which we now establish balances these competing legsd and societal considerations. It is supported logically, historically, and by fairness.

Oberg v. Department of Natural Resources

114 Wash. 2d 278 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1990

It is liable for its established negligence unless the public duty doctrine precludes liability. … because of immunity.

Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc.

196 Wash. 2d 506 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 5, 2020

We apply the Chevron Oil test, which asks whether “(1) the decision established a new rule of law that either overruled clear precedent upon which the parties relied or was not clearly foreshadowed, (2) retroactive application … clearly foreshadowed, (2) retroactive application would tend to impede the policy objectives of the new rule, and (3) retroactive application would produce a substantially inequitable result.’”

Auto. United Trades Org. v. State

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2015

First, it contends that to qualify as a refund, the original tax must have been paid even though it was not due. … More importantly, AUTO has not established that the tribes were legally obligated to pay the tax outside of their contractual agreement to do so.

Michaels v. CH2M Hill, Inc.

171 Wash. 2d 587 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 2011

Clearly, if no construction was occurring on the campus, the immunity provisions of RCW 51.24.035 would not be at issue. CH2M’s contract with the city contemplated at least two main activities. … The immunity statute at issue addresses both historical bases for liability; it protects design professionals from general liability for work site safety (unless assumed by contract) but clearly recognizes common law liability

Braam v. State

150 Wash. 2d 689 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2003

immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. … Whether and when qualified immunity is available to state actors triggers a consideration of issues not before us.

Ackerman v. Port of Seattle

55 Wash. 2d 400 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1960

If any airspace needed for landing or taking off were included, flights which were so close to the land as to render it uninhabitable would be immune. … If any airspace needed for landing or taking off were included, flights which were so close to the land as to render *411 it uninhabitable would be immune.

In Re the Appeal of the Tacoma Auto Freight Depot, Inc.

19 Wash. 2d 334 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1943

The qualifying shares were owned by the wives of the respective parties in whose names the stock appears on the books of the corporations. … Kitsap County Bank, 10 Wn. (2d) 520, 117 P. (2d) 228 , that, in view of the necessity for an established administrative policy, it would seem that the power of control and control as used in the definition of employer should

State v. Unga

196 P.3d 645 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 26, 2008

Unga was clearly aware that he was being questioned as a suspect in the commission of criminal activity. ¶ 29 The questioning was of short duration, lasting only 30 minutes. … Broadaway, 133 Wash.2d 118, 132 , 942 P.2d 363 (1997) (establishing the "totality of the circumstances" and stating, "[t]he court must determine whether there is a causal relationship between the promise and the confession

Pappas v. Holloway

114 Wash. 2d 198 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1990

The defendants raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity from suit on the grounds they acted in good faith and on advice of their legal counsel. Hearn , at 577. … Ct. 385 (1947), the United States Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity for an attorney's work product and concluded materials which fell under the doctrine need only be produced upon a substantial showing of necessity

Ducote v. Department of Social & Health Services

167 Wash. 2d 697 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2009

There we held that a stepparent who stands in loco parentis to a child is entitled to the same parental immunity as a legal parent. Id. at 151. … In my view, whether a stepparent qualifies should be treated as a question of fact to be determined based on the individual family situation. Here, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed merely because he was a stepparent.

GROUP HEALTH CO-OP. OF PUGET SOUND, INC. v. State Tax Comm'n

72 Wash. 2d 422 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1967

Respondent's initial application and continued claim of the pertinent deduction, under the statute as worded by the 1945 legislative amendment, clearly called for and authorized a factual determination and exercise of judgment … Both a tax "exemption," which does not amount to total immunity, and a "deduction" presuppose a taxable status and must be claimed by the taxpayer if he is to benefit from either.

Paulson v. County of Pierce

99 Wash. 2d 645 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 1983

the same immunity. … We have examined the evidence relied upon by plaintiffs to establish the joint venture and agree with the position of the trial court that Recreation Properties had no control over the diking enterprise of Pierce County.

Campbell v. State

12 Wash. 2d 459 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1942

Swayze, its director of licenses, plaintiff alleged that he is duly licensed and qualified to practice dentistry in the state of Washington, owning and operating, under his own name of *461 “Dr. J. C. … The opinion clearly states the reasons for the conclusion reached by the court, and the facts differ so greatly from those here presented that the case is not in point.

Braam Ex Rel. Braam v. State

81 P.3d 851 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2003

Dep't of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883 , 893 (10th Cir.1992) (holding that the constitutional right of foster children to be reasonably safe from harm was clearly established); K.H. v. … Whether and when qualified immunity is available to state actors triggers a consideration of issues not before us.

Barr v. Day

124 Wash. 2d 318 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1994

In the present case, the client clearly expressed her loss of confidence and desire to terminate the confidential relationship with Attorney Day almost a year before the settlement. … While we agree Stocker is immune, we believe his immunity is better conceived as a branch of quasi-judicial immunity rather than witness immunity.

Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Inc. v. Washington State Tax Commission

72 Wash. 2d 422 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1967

Respondent’s initial application and continued claim of the pertinent deduction, under the statute as worded by the 1945 legislative amendment, clearly called for and authorized a factual determination and exercise of judgment … Both a tax “exemption,” which does not amount to total immunity, and a “deduction” presuppose a taxable status and must be claimed by the taxpayer if he is to benefit from either.

Manor v. Nestle Food Co.

131 Wash. 2d 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1997

ANALYSIS An employer may comply with the requirements of the IIA either by insuring with the State Industrial Insurance Fund or qualifying as a self-insurer under Title 51 RCW. … While this is a regulation and not a statute, "[i]t has been established in a variety of contexts that properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the 'force and effect of law.’ ” Chrysler Corp. v.

Gephart v. Stout

11 Wash. 2d 184 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1941

contribute to the fund is immune. … While the foregoing cases are not directly in point, they do clearly establish two essential requirements which an employer must meet to entitle him to immunity from suit by a workman not in his employ: (1) The employer must