Case law

Partridge v. City of Seattle

49 Wash. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 31, 1987

Clearly, the statute, as amended, includes public landowners and occupiers within the recreational use immunity from liability. McCarver , at 376. … Construing the statute to include constructive knowledge would be contrary to the clearly expressed purpose of RCW 4.24 limiting the liability of landowners.

In re the Adoption of S.H.

169 Wash. App. 85 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 2012

“The legislature should define the statutory term prospective adoptive parent, clearly *104 setting forth the prerequisites to become one. … Betty took SH to her physician, with the caseworker’s approval, and the doctor did not give immunizations. Department personnel never mentioned immunizations.

Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores

122 Wash. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 13, 2004

Thus, Samis and Arborwood control our analysis and dictate the result here. *615 Effect of Sovereign Immunity Doctrine on Award of Interest on Judgment The City also contends that its sovereign immunity bars the trial court … City of Tacoma, 63 Wn.2d 913 , 390 P.2d 2 (1964): “ ‘Municipal corporations enjoy their immunity from liability for torts only in so far as they partake of the state’s immunity, and only in the exercise of those governmental

Rideau v. Cort Furniture Rental

110 Wash. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 11, 2002

We find that the case law is clear; both control of the employer and consent of the employee are required to establish an employment relationship. … With respect to consent, there must be clear evidence of a mutual agreement between the employee and employer such that the employee has clearly consented to be the “employee” of the “employer.” 24 An employee’s subjective

Wright v. Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp.

127 Wash. App. 644 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 23, 2005

Because the dispute did not clearly arise either *653 on or off the reservation, the court applied Montana and held that the negligible threat to tribal self-government, coupled with the state’s interest in enforcing contracts … The United States Supreme Court has not established a test. See, e.g., EEOC v. Karuk Tribe Hous.

Wright v. Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp.

111 P.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 23, 2005

Because the dispute did not clearly arise either on or off the reservation, the court applied Montana and held that the negligible threat to tribal self-government, coupled with the state's interest in enforcing contracts … The United States Supreme Court has not established a test. [7] See, e.g., EEOC v. Karuk Tribe Hous.

Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders With Ethics & Accountability Now

119 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 13, 2004

The second is that the defendant prevail by establishing immunity. … Nor will the record support a finding that $50,000 was reasonably incurred to establish a single defense (immunity) to a single claim (the IA defamation claim).

Cultee v. City of Tacoma

95 Wash. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 7, 1999

The City has argued that Jesse Cultee’s testimony irrefutably establishes that the “condition” was obvious. … This, the City argues, establishes that the condition was “obvious.”

Peterick v. State

22 Wash. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 12, 1978

Was the State of Washington immune from liability by virtue of the Industrial Insurance Act? Wilson v. EXCOA. … To qualify for relief under a theory of equitable estoppel, a party must show (1) an admission, statement, or act, inconsistent with the claim afterwards asserted; (2) action by the other party on the faith of such admission

Riley v. Burlington Northern, Inc.

27 Wash. App. 11 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 29, 1980

Consequently, the County was immune from tort liability. On that sole ground, plaintiffs' action was dismissed. We reverse. Discretionary governmental immunity in this state is an extremely limited exception. Stewart v. … (4) Does the governmental agency involved possess the requisite . . . authority *15 Only if all four questions are clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, can the act, omission or decision be classified as

Riggins v. Bechtel Power Corp.

44 Wash. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 1986

Bechtel claims that through this provision Jones waived its industrial insurance immunity. Employers are generally immune from liability arising from their employees' job-related injuries. RCW 51.04-.010; McDowell v. … In Brown, at 239-40, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for clarity: We hold that an indemnity clause of this type is enforceable only if it clearly and specifically contains a waiver of the immunity of the workers' compensation

Outsource Services Management, LLC v. Nooksack Business Corp.

172 Wash. App. 799 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 14, 2013

burden of proof on its existence. 8 ¶14 Where a court dismisses an FRCP 12(b)(1) motion “based on a factual challenge . . . the appellate court will accept the factual determination that underpins the decision unless it is clearly … the existence of personal jurisdiction, has discretion to rely on written submissions, or it may hold a full evidentiary hearing. 11 Once challenged, the party asserting personal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof to establish

Cowell v. Good Samaritan Community Health Care

153 Wash. App. 911 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 28, 2009

Presbyterian Healthcare Services, 49 Cowell focuses on the phrase “in part” and argues that this statement “clearly conveys the false defamatory meaning that Dr. … Nor do these words establish that GSH submitted the report with knowledge of its falsity. B.

Sundberg v. Evans

78 Wash. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 20, 1995

She concluded that the ordinance did not clearly show a commercial designation. … Sum-rail’s representations are not therefore immune under the discretionary governmental immunity exception.

Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores

94 P.3d 961 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 13, 2004

EFFECT OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE ON AWARD OF INTEREST ON JUDGMENT The City also contends that its sovereign immunity bars the trial court's imposition of pre- and post-judgment interest. *973 The general rule is that … They are only sovereign and only immune in so far as they represent the state.

Scott Iceberg v. Deborah Tigerson

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 12, 2026

Therefore, her email did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and she was entitled to qualified immunity. … FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM Iceberg argues that Tigerson’s March 27 email violated his clearly established First Amendment rights.

Xieng v. Peoples National Bank

63 Wash. App. 572 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1991

Xieng's American military training was conducted in English, prepared him to be an air and sea rescue pilot, and required him to communicate clearly over military radio. … Nguyen, testified that Xieng's physical problems were "more likely than not" caused by the depression of his body's immune system due to emotional distress.

Dot Foods, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

141 Wash. App. 874 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 27, 2007

Therefore, Dot Foods does not qualify for the exemption, and we affirm. II. … Clearly, the statute is written ambiguously. As stated above, we resolve ambiguities in favor of taxation and against exemption.

State v. Gedarro

19 Wash. App. 826 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 1978

Proscriptions imposed upon gambling activity are entirely within the legislative domain and are essentially immune from judicial interpretation. Northwest Greyhound "Kennel Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 8 Wn. … The statute clearly provides persons of ordinary intelligence and understanding with fair notice and ascertainable standards of the conduct sought to be proscribed. *832 The definition of professional gambling clearly focuses

Gossage v. State

112 Wash. App. 412 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 2, 2002

Gossage argues that Ford establishes that “ ‘preferred for appointment and employment’ is given its plain meaning — a veteran protected under this statute shall be selected over another qualified candidate.” … The record before us establishes that taking the entire hiring process into account, Gossage was not equally qualified to those applicants ultimately chosen for the position.