Case law

Nichols v. Snohomish County

47 Wash. App. 550 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 29, 1987

We thus reject the County's *557 immunity argument. … If he is not so qualified as a result of disability sustained during his service, or during the determination of his fitness for service, but is nevertheless qualified to perform the duties of another position, under the

Estate of Jones v. State

107 Wash. App. 510 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 26, 2000

State, the court held that while parole officers have qualified personal immunity, that immunity does not run to the State, which remains liable for a parole *519 officer’s negligent supervision. 13 In Bishop v. … Bishop, 137 Wn.2d at 524-26 (discussing absolute and qualified immunity for parole officers). Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 223-24 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992). Taggart, 118 Wn.2d at 223-24 . Taggart, 118 Wn.2d at 210-11 .

Korean Presbyterian Church of Seattle Normalization Committee v. Sun Young Lee

75 Wash. App. 833 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 26, 1994

Conduct does not qualify for immunity based upon the privilege if the conduct at issue is not religiously motivated, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 , 32 L. Ed. 2d 15 , 92 S. … The Petitioners’ answer clearly states as an affirmative defense that the conduct was privileged.

Miguel v. Guess

112 Wash. App. 536 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 18, 2002

He cites Bator for the proposition that “[q]ualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, Bator held that no qualified immunity existed to protect the defendants from a suit alleging sexual harassment.

City of Seattle v. McConahy

86 Wash. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 2, 1997

We also do not decide whether homeless residents could establish the requisite disparate impact to invoke the *562 protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clause because these appellants have not done so. … our Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Estate of Jones v. State

15 P.3d 180 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 26, 2000

State , the court held that while parole officers have qualified personal immunity, that immunity does not run to the State, which remains liable for a parole officer's negligent supervision. [13] In Bishop v. … State, 111 Wash.2d 182, 193 , 759 P.2d 1188 (1988))). [9] Bishop, 137 Wash.2d at 524-26 , 973 P.2d 465 (discussing absolute and qualified immunity for parole officers). [10] Taggart v.

Saldivar v. Momah

145 Wash. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 24, 2008

Klingbeil is not qualified to opine on psychiatric conditions.” … Nor does the defense counsel’s use of the word “jury” establish “actual notice” of a jury demand.

Floyd Scott, V. American Express National Bank

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 2, 2022

If a law firm’s primary purpose is the collection of consumer debts, it may qualify as a collection agency under the WCAA. Mandelas v. Gordon, 785 F. … All five elements must be established for a CPA claim to be successful. Keodalah v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 Wn.2d 339, 350, 449 P.3d 1040 (2019).

Malone v. City of Seattle

24 Wash. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 1979

The Paramedic Civil Immunity Act clearly and unambiguously states that no liability shall be occasioned by the good faith rendition of "emergency lifesaving service" by a paramedic. … The plaintiff argues that the act's definition of a "physician's trained mobile intensive care paramedic" 3 qualifies, and thereby circumscribes, the situational meaning of *223 "emergency lifesaving service."

Ruiz v. State

154 Wash. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 8, 2010

The tree that caused the injury was clearly located within a designated riparian zone. … The application process here clearly established a zone within which Hancock was prevented from harvesting timber. That zone is not disputed by the parties.

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Ecology

50 P.3d 668 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 29, 2002

Moreover, qualifying the types of contracts excluded from the act reduces the number of contracts barred from review under the WAPA. … Ecology and the City contend that the IFA is clearly not a proprietary contract. They assert that "proprietary," in this context, refers to the doctrine of a government's sovereign immunity from citizen lawsuit.

Hauber v. Yakima County

107 Wash. App. 437 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 24, 2001

The S&R dive on March 15, *445 1997 clearly qualified as a mission for the purposes of chapter 38.52 RCW. … Hauber contends she is not subject to the immunity of RCW 38.52.190 because that provision conflicts with her rights under RCW 38.52.080.

In Re The Complex Litigation Div. Of Wa Ag

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 2, 2026

When this question is asked of the Archdiocese, the longstanding establishment in Western Washington of one of the world’s most ancient and most cultivated religions, it clearly qualifies. … of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution

State v. Entz

58 Wash. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 29, 1990

Acting knowingly or with knowledge also is established if a person acts intentionally. Knowledge or intent is not established if a person merely acts recklessly. … Instead we hold that since Entz concedes she cannot establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under the federal constitution, she cannot establish a violation of the privileges and immunities clause under the Washington

Anica v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

120 Wash. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 5, 2004

Next, Anica claims that despite the IIA, Wal-Mart does not enjoy immunity from her lawsuit. … against individuals on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. 47 Congress therefore incorporated in IRCA protections for “protected individuals.” 48 Anica would derive no benefit even if we were to recognize a clearly

J.S.K. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Lacey

6 Wash. App. 43 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1971

The evidence clearly established that lewd acts occurred at the Royal Sauna before the amendment of ordinance No. 86 and before 'and after the Royal Sauna received its last license. … It is blanket in nature and seeks to exclude female bartenders, no matter how individually qualified, from all licensed establishments, no matter how suitably conducted.

Estate of Kepl v. State

34 Wash. App. 5 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 1983

Kepi cites the court to numerous cases which address the scope of the qualified immunity available to executive officers for acts performed in the course of their official conduct. … Our disposition of the case does not require us to determine whether a qualified immunity existed here. 5 Paragraph 8 of the amended complaint reads: "Michael Jessup, James Blakeley, and Dr. John A.

Coffel v. Clallam County

47 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 13, 1987

Second, the defendants argue that the deputies possess a qualified immunity, shielding them from liability if they acted reasonably and in good faith. Defendants rely on Guffey v. … State, 103 Wn.2d 144, 152 , 690 P.2d 1163 (1984), which established that an officer is immune in an action for false arrest if he acted reasonably in carrying out a statutory duty according to procedures dictated by statute

Dan Young, V. Todd S. Rayan

533 P.3d 123 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 24, 2023

As applied to witnesses, the privilege is sometimes referred to as witness immunity, and under it, “[a]s a general rule, witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from suit based on their testimony.” … Bender, however, discussed the difference between doctrines of absolute and qualified (and discretionary) immunity in the abstract, not as applied to any particular set of facts. 99 Wn.2d at 600.

Collins v. King County

49 Wash. App. 264 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 8, 1987

The Anderson court upheld the district attorney's claim of immunity, stating as follows: While it is true that a prosecuting attorney acting in a matter which is clearly outside of the duties of his office is personally liable … Thus, responsibilities for the establishment and implementation of the VAU have been placed with the prosecuting attorney. Therefore, Kahaumia was carrying out a mandated function of the prosecuting attorney.