Case law

Desmet v. State

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2022

, “an immunity traditionally granted judges,” when the legislature had granted only qualified immunity to caseworkers making emergency removal decisions prior to an initial shelter care hearing. … Babcock, 116 Wn.2d at 622.13 13 Several subsequent decisions have endorsed this balance of denying absolute immunity for governmental entities, like the Department, and granting qualified immunity

Ace Fireworks Co. v. City of Tacoma

76 Wash. 2d 207 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1969

To be void for unreasonableness, an ordinance must be clearly and plainly unreasonable. Seattle v. Hurst, 50 Wash. 424 , 97 P. 454 (1908). … It is with this thought in mind that we hold as reasonable the distinction between proven, experienced, qualified retail fireworks licensees on the one hand and other applicants who may also be qualified, but as yet without

Worthington v. WestNET

182 Wash. 2d 500 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2015

Contrast the cases cited by the dissent, in which the enabling statute at issue is not qualified and instead conclusively provides for defendant’s immunity. See dissent at 517-18 (citing Roth v. … That possibility is qualified by subsection .030(5), which prohibits the contributing agencies from using these agreements to avoid other obligations.

Harper v. State

110 Wash. 2d 873 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1988

Ill The State's final argument is that Harper's suit must be dismissed because he has proved no violation of a "clearly established" constitutional right so as to overcome the State's qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § … Official conduct is per se unreasonable if contrary to clearly established constitutional rights. Hocker , at 825; Wood , at 322.

Moore v. Smith

89 Wash. 2d 932 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1978

Once the existence of an occasion of qualified privilege is established, the burden of proof to demonstrate abuse of privilege shifts to the plaintiff. … Our decisions have clearly restricted the application of absolute privilege while we have frequently discussed the applicability of qualified privilege. Engelmohr v. Bache, 66 Wn.2d 103 , 401 P.2d 346 (1965); Owens v.

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. … The trial court dismissed all claims against the individual Defendants for actions taken prior to July 15,1986 on the basis of qualified immunity.

Latimer v. Western MacHinery Exchange

40 Wash. 2d 155 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1952

This defense is based upon what is called the immunity provision of the workmen’s compensation act. Rem. Rev. Stat. … Appellant also vigorously attacks the second hypothesis upon which respondent’s immunity to suit is based, i.e., that appellant, as an individual employer, could have qualified as a workman for benefits under the workmen’

McKinney v. Northwest Tractor & Equipment Corp.

41 Wash. 2d 372 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1952

The defendant .corporation appeared specially and moved to quash the service upon it on three grounds, two of which merit consideration here: (1) that it is a foreign corporation and is not qualified to do business in the … Brown is not sufficiently explicit to establish that fact. The basic question of whether the defendant corporation is transacting business in this state is not one that should be *374 decided on conflicting affidavits.

Latimer v. Western MacHinery Exchange

42 Wash. 2d 756 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1953

In other words, we now hold that the so-called immunity provision of the workmen’s compensation act, the provision in RCW 51.24.010 just referred to, does not bar an action by a self-employed individual for negligence causing … , that, inasmuch as “any individual employer or any member or officer of any corporate employer” engaged in extrahazardous employment may elect to take under the workmen’s compensation act, such persons are bound by the immunity

Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co.

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2014

(dissenting) may qualify for the immunity. RCW 4.24.210. … 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.

Miller v. Pacific County

91 Wash. 2d 744 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1979

There are two clearly established foundations in this case. First, the defendants exceeded the scope of their authority in denying payment of appellant's vouchers without a formal revision of the county budget. … There a county commissioner was granted absolute immunity in his legislative capacity for a vote cast upon a formal resolution, but was limited to the protection afforded by qualified immunity in his duties revolving the

Adams v. King County

164 Wash. 2d 640 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2008

Consistent with this purpose, the WAGA established procedures to facilitate the procurement of anatomical gifts. … Establishing good faith immunity serves the legislative purpose by encouraging potential *656 donees to seek anatomical gifts without increasing the risk of liability.

Adams v. King County

192 P.3d 891 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2008

Consistent with this purpose, the WAGA established procedures to facilitate the procurement of anatomical gifts. … Establishing good faith immunity serves the legislative purpose by encouraging potential donees to seek anatomical gifts without increasing the risk of liability.

Engelmohr v. Bache

66 Wash. 2d 103 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1965

Study Group was an administrative body, that the hearing in which the defendants testified was an administrative proceeding which was not quasi-judicial in nature, and that defendants, therefore, were afforded, at most, a qualified … privilege wherein false statements were immune from a defamation action only if made in good faith and without malice.

Segaline v. Department of Labor & Industries

169 Wash. 2d 467 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2010

. ¶1 — We are asked to decide whether a government agency qualifies as a “person” under RCW 4.24.510. … Does a government agency qualify as a “person” under RCW 4.24.510?

Madison v. State

161 Wash. 2d 85 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2007

Respondents have failed to establish that felons’ right to vote qualifies as an important right under federal case law. … Johnson’s concurrence would have this court limit the right to vote, for purposes of the privileges and immunities clause, to “ ‘the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state

Wilson v. City of Seattle

122 Wash. 2d 814 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1993

Judicially reading in a qualified immunity not expressly provided by the Legislature would permit the City to potentially defeat causes of action under RCW 64.40.020. … I disagree with the majority's view that municipal claims ordinances are in part an exercise of sovereign immunity in that they limit or qualify the ability of individuals to sue the *826 government.

American Legion Post No. 149 v. Department of Health

164 Wash. 2d 570 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 11, 2008

the federal privileges and immunities clause.” … However, the term “privileges and immunities” under the state constitution is defined in accordance with the federal constitution’s privileges and immunities clause. Id. at 813; State v.

Hand v. Greyhound Corp.

49 Wash. 2d 171 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1956

In establishing this broad and sweeping state policy respecting industrial injuries, the legislature made only one exception. … In the Jewett case, the employer had not personally qualified for benefits, but he was paying industrial insurance premiums as to certain of his employees.

Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Management (Colorado) LLC

171 Wash. 2d 736 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2011

First, the reporting statute grants immunity from civil liability, implying civil liability exists. Id. at 78. In contrast, MUMA grants qualified patients and caregivers immunity from criminal liability. … Though the employer in Roberts was immune from liability under chapter 49.60 RCW because it employed fewer than eight employees, the statute established a clear public policy for purposes of the employee’s wrongful termination