Case law

Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle

131 Wash. 2d 640 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Sintra argues the trial court erred by dismissing its claims against the City's employees on summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for the employee's conduct before July 15, 1986. … Ex. 227. [4] The trial court dismissed all claims against the individual Defendants for actions taken prior to July 15, 1986 on the basis of qualified immunity.

Jenkins v. DSHS

157 P.3d 388 · Washington Supreme Court · May 3, 2007

We have held this statute does not apply to public agencies absent a clear waiver of sovereign immunity. … Unlike the majority, I do not believe that the comparability provision clearly indicates Congress's intent with respect to the specific question before us.

Harris v. Drake

99 P.3d 872 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 14, 2004

We hold that the report may be entitled to the qualified immunity of the work product doctrine. FACTS Doris Drake, defendant/petitioner, rearended Bradley Harris, plaintiff/respondent in April 1996. … The work product doctrine provides a qualified immunity from discovery. Under the work product doctrine, documents prepared in anticipation of litigation are discoverable only upon a showing of substantial need.

Washington Chocolate Co. v. King County

21 Wash. 2d 630 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1944

The holding of the court in the case cited was clearly correct. In the later case of Lake & Co. v. … The supreme court has clearly pointed out the distinction between imports and property moving in interstate commerce.

State v. Miller

177 Wash. 442 · Washington Supreme Court · May 2, 1934

Clearly this was not error. … The instruction continues: “But I charge you gentlemen that, in dealing with such a condition, you ought to use great caution not to give immunity to persons who commit crime when they are inflamed by intoxicating drink.

State v. Reis

Washington Supreme Court · May 7, 2015

In this context, the amended MUCA clearly establishes a tiered 10 … Instead, qualifying patients and designated providers are provided with an affirmative defense and RCW 69.51A.040 establishes the elements for raising that defense.

Owens v. Young

59 Wash. 2d 30 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1961

As to her, the record establishes the clear intent of the parties to continue the host-guest relationship. … Clearly the act of the defendant in turning the car around . . . for the return trip was necessarily incidental to the accomplishment of the gratuitous undertaking, in order to carry out the prearranged purpose of the trip

Ford Motor Co. v. Barrett

115 Wash. 2d 556 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1990

to substantiate it. 15 "Such a rational basis for a legislative decision need not have actually motivated the Legislature's decision." 16 The Legislature clearly articulated its purpose in enacting the motor vehicle warranties … State Privileges and Immunities Clause Appellant Ford contends that the attorney's fees and continuing damages provision of RCW 19.118.100(3) violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington State Constitution

State v. Boren

36 Wash. 2d 522 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1950

"To own and manage property is a natural right, and one which may be restricted only for reasons of public policy, clearly discernible. … Clearly, such a regulation is a reasonable exercise of its police power. For the reasons hereinabove assigned, the decision in State v. Brown is hereby overruled.

State v. Fagalde

85 Wash. 2d 730 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1975

A licensed psychologist must have a doctoral degree with a *733 major in psychology and a year’s experience practicing psychology under qualified supervision and must pass a prescribed examination. … The provision in this act granting immunity from civil liability indicates that reports concerning statements made by the perpetrator are contemplated, even though they would otherwise be privileged.

Department of Revenue v. Boeing Co.

85 Wash. 2d 663 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1975

We agree with the Superior Court that this is clearly erroneous and that the record establishes that the building could be used for purposes other than the manufacture of Boeing 747’s. … The record makes it apparent that the Superior Court was correct and that the finding of the Board of Tax Appeals was clearly erroneous as to the weight of the jigs.

Price v. Kitsap Transit

125 Wash. 2d 456 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1994

This argument confuses the *463 concepts of immunity and incapacity. … The Prices’ approach would permit the trial court to circumvent, at least in part, the rule established by Washburn .

Washington State Republican Party v. STATE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION

4 P.3d 808 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2000

Qualified immunity may also be raised as a defense. … 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

ANDERSON & MIDDLETON LUMBER v. Quinault

929 P.2d 379 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1996

consider in personam jurisdiction, immunity and 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 court's

McDonald v. Hogness

92 Wash. 2d 431 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1979

McDonald states that the U.W. medical school's practice is to admit all qualified minority persons because of race, but not all qualified nonminority individuals. … That provision concludes that "such matters need not be established by rule adopted under this chapter unless otherwise required by law." 12 See Alevy v.

State v. Ingels

4 Wash. 2d 676 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1940

A person may achieve immunity by testifying before a grand jury concerning offenses for which he might otherwise be tried, while at the same time such immunity does not extend to perjury committed in testifying before the … The record clearly indicates that Smith was an unwilling witness.

In Re McHugh's Estate

165 Wash. 123 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1931

Barbara McHugh qualified as executrix and, as required by the statute (Rem. Comp. Stat., § 1477), she caused to be published a notice of her appointment as executrix and a notice to creditors to file their claims. … Whatever her purpose, the executrix by her notice and order clearly allowed the respondent's claim as a valid claim against the separate property of the decedent. The order appealed from is affirmed.

American Network, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission

113 Wash. 2d 59 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1989

WAC 480-120-057(1) provides as follows: (1) Establishment of credit—interexchange telecommunications company. … or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.

Seattle-First National Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co.

91 Wash. 2d 230 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1978

This, of course, is conduct "immunized" by our statute and not cognizable by the judiciary. … The concept of "successive" tort-feasors applies when none of the multiple tort-feasors could have caused the whole harm suffered and where the harm caused is clearly divisible. See Smith v.

State Ex Rel. Schwab v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

80 Wash. 2d 266 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1972

The ultimate constitutional power clearly lies within the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This point is conceded in the brief of the respondent bar association. … We are not concerned in this case with the illegal delegation of powers to this state agency as I see it, nor with questions of equal protection and special privileges and immunities under the Fourteenth Amendment, and their