Case law

Hildahl v. Bringolf

5 P.3d 38 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 28, 2000

The Act established "a system of compulsory state industrial insurance," under which "all awards are paid from the accident fund." Greenleaf v. … into the state industrial insurance fund. [17] Nor was Bringolf a qualified self-insurer. [18] U.S.

Thomas v. Lehman

138 Wash. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 15, 2007

In so doing, however, we do not consider and, instead, reject the DOC’s assertion that public officials are immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights actions. … Neither absolute nor qualified immunity extends to § 1983 suits for declaratory relief such as this one. See, e.g., Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 33 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1059 (1996); Chrissy F. v.

Hildahl v. Bringolf

101 Wash. App. 634 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 28, 2000

The Act established “a system of compulsory state industrial insurance,” under which “all awards are paid from the accident fund.” Greenleaf v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co., 58 Wn.2d 647, 658 , 364 P.2d 796 (1961). … Nor was Bringolf a qualified self-insurer. U.S. Const, amend XTV, § 1; Wash. Const, art. I, § 12.

Spurrell v. Block

40 Wash. App. 854 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 10, 1985

State, 103 Wn.2d 144 , 690 P.2d 1163 (1984), the Supreme Court recognized that police officers have a qualified immunity from false imprisonment claims arising out of everyday operational acts. … We do not suggest, however, that the failure to observe the statute in this case automatically establishes liability; failure to establish immunity does not prove the elements of a claim.

Zion HealthShare, Inc. v. Office of the Insurance Commissioner

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 5, 2026

Establishment clause of the United States Constitution The establishment clause of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. CONST. amend. … Any religious denomination can qualify as a health care sharing ministry. The seasoning component applies with equal force to all denominations.

Jacques v. Sharp

83 Wash. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 9, 1996

State, a recent Supreme Court case that has an important bearing on the question of the qualified immunity of a police officer’s employer. 31 The parties will have the opportunity to address that case and other pertinent … Second, the DVPA provision on qualified immunity is based on RCW 26.50.110(2), which mandates warrantless arrests where the officer has probable cause to believe a criminal violation of an order for protection has occurred

North Western Mortgage Investors Corp. v. Slumkoski

3 Wash. App. 971 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 28, 1970

It is North Western’s position that, even if the facts alleged by the Rowes were true, they do not establish a meritorious defense. … taken the mortgage (armed with the immunities of negotiability) without notice of any “defect in the title of the person negotiating it.”

Childs v. Allen

105 P.3d 411 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 11, 2005

Thus, the qualified immunity afforded to DSHS caseworkers does not affect the nature of the immunity granted to a substance abuse evaluator such as Allen. Allen relies on Gustafson v. … Here, there was no reasonable possibility of reversal because Allen was clearly entitled to absolute witness immunity and was not the proximate cause of Childs injuries.

Tatyana Mason, V John Mason And Laurie Robertson

497 P.3d 431 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 19, 2021

The trial court was “persuaded that [Tatyana had] difficulty understanding and communicating in English,” and that she “clearly benefited from the provision of interpretive services.” Id. at 87. … Discussing Ninth Circuit cases pertaining to qualified immunity including Lanuza v. Love, 899 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2018) and 27 No. 51642-0-II Reynaga Hernandez v.

Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg

112 Wash. App. 501 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 15, 2002

The court below had decided that even if Wyatt and his attorney acted under color of law, they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because they relied on the statute prior to its invalidation. … The Supreme Court reversed and held that private parties who invoke state replevin, garnishment or attachment statutes that are later declared unconstitutional are not entitled to either immunity or qualified immunity from

Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Wiscomb

25 Wash. App. 841 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 14, 1980

Freehe, 81 Wn.2d 183, 500 P.2d 771 (1972) clearly and decisively abolished the doctrine of interspousal immunity. … The established methods of detecting and discouraging fraud can be applied to intrafamily claims without the effect of denying coverage to bona fide claimants. Borst v. Borst, supra.

Foxworthy v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Ass'n

169 P.3d 53 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 30, 2007

Thus, if Foxworthy is to sustain her cause of action, she must establish that Congress has impliedly abrogated tribal sovereign immunity. 3. … tribal casino instead of in a non-Indian establishment off the reservation.

Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg

50 P.3d 266 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 15, 2002

The court below had decided that even if Wyatt and his attorney acted under color of law, they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because they relied on the statute prior to its invalidation. … The Supreme Court reversed *272 and held that private parties who invoke state replevin, garnishment or attachment statutes that are later declared unconstitutional are not entitled to either immunity or qualified immunity

Emmerson v. Weilep

126 Wash. App. 930 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2005

Weilep points out the text of RCW 4.24.510 expressly provides for immunity from “civil liability,” as opposed to immunity from a civil action for damages, its meaning must be construed in the context of the statutory scheme … Here, the legislative purpose gives qualifying parties immunity *937 from “civil action[s] for damages,” (RCW 4.24.500) and the statutory intent language discusses liability in terms of a “civil complaint or counterclaim

State v. Bryant

97 Wash. App. 479 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 20, 1999

Prior to trial, 1 Bryant moved to dismiss the charges against him on the theory that the State could not establish that he was being prosecuted independently of statements he made under the immunity agreement. … We will uphold these findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 33 Jonathan Crane, a Mercer Island detective, testified that *493 Bryant approached Crane in 1994 to ask for immunity in exchange for information.

Vernon v. Aacres Allvest, LLC

183 Wash. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 3, 2014

A child would frequently be able to establish dependence on a parent, but the inverse is likely rare. The same can be said in comparing spouses with siblings. … The Philippides court rejected a similar argument based on the privileges and immunities clause. 151 Wn.2d at 392-93.

Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue

120 Wash. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2004

Because the communication was made to a private newspaper, RCW 4.24.510 clearly did not apply. … Additionally, because RCW 4.24.510 clearly did not apply because the communication was not to a governmental agency, analyzing whether the statute excludes immunity for governmental entities was not central to the court’s

Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce County

158 P.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 22, 2007

These bond companies are justified by the Superior Court through an established process designed to show that the company is qualified to conduct business in this field. … McAllister implies that Signature had authority because "[t]hese bond companies are justified by the Superior Court through an established process designed to show that the company is qualified to conduct business in this

Jones v. Robert E. Bayley Construction Co.

36 Wash. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 5, 1984

Public policy requires that an intent to waive the employer's immunity be clearly expressed. Glass v. Stahl Specialty Co., 97 Wn.2d 880, 886 , 652 P.2d 948 (1982); Calkins v. Lorain Div. of Koehring Co., 26 Wn. … "The agreement need only clearly express an intent to provide for indemnification." Noia v. Ferrell-Penning, Inc., supra. Clause L clearly expresses an intent to provide for indemnification.

Thomas v. Lehman

158 P.3d 86 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 15, 2007

Clearly, the Legislature did not intend inmates to have unfettered, immediate access to their wages during their incarceration. C. … Neither absolute nor qualified immunity extends to § 1983 suits for declaratory relief such as this one. See, e.g., Orellana v.