Case law

State v. Youde

174 Wash. App. 873 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 20, 2013

Youde handed the undercover officer six grams of marijuana in exchange for *877 $90, without making any effort to verify that he was qualified as a medical user. … It is well established that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed; it cannot be implied. E.g., United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 , 96 S. Ct. 948 , 47 L.

Sattler v. Northwest Tissue Center

110 Wash. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 18, 2002

The standard of good faith is objective; it affords immunity to qualified individuals and entities who demonstrate that they acted with an honest belief, without malice and without a design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable … We conclude Northwest qualifies as an “other person” and is entitled by statute to assert the defense.

Demopolis v. Peoples National Bank

59 Wash. App. 105 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 4, 1990

An Arizona case is instructive: As an immunity which focuses on the status of the actor, the privilege immunizes an attorney for statements made "while performing his function as such." … The burden of establishing an abuse of a qualified privilege rests on the defamed party, who must show that the speaker acted with actual malice; i.e., that he or she knew the statement was false, or had a high degree of

Forsch v. City of Kent

81 Wash. App. 270 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 15, 1996

Because only the trooper remained as a defendant, the Supreme Court’s analysis turned on qualified immunity (it will be recalled that a governmental body has no qualified immunity under § 1983). … Qualified immunity serves to protect the officer on the street, not the municipality.

Baumgartner v. Department of Corrections

124 Wash. App. 738 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 28, 2004

. ¶7 Under the exhaustion doctrine, a plaintiff must seek administrative remedies when “(1) [the plaintiff’s] claim is cognizable in the first instance by an agency alone; (2) the agency has clearly established mechanisms … And actions taken by individuals in their official capacity as state officers of the state are also immune from liability unless acting under color of law but in violation of clearly established state law. Wash.

Burgess v. Towne

13 Wash. App. 954 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 21, 1975

Ct. 1213 (1967), stated: New doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for dam *957 ages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized … Ct. 343 (1964), a judge who interfered with judicial proceedings after he had dis *959 qualified himself was held to be acting in clear absence of jurisdiction. Likewise, Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 209 F.

Brown v. Labor Ready Northwest, Inc.

113 Wash. App. 643 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 16, 2002

Henson told Stevens he was qualified to operate heavy machinery. Stevens considered Henson a good worker. He asked Labor Ready about Henson’s qualifications and was advised Henson was qualified to operate a forklift. … Early Construction Co. 19 But exclusive control for all purposes is not required, as the facts of Nyman clearly demonstrate.

Bruce L. Davidson, M.d. v. Robb W. Glenny, M.d., Et Ano.

14 Wash. App. 2d 370 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 24, 2020

is like a qualified privilege.58 By 53Magney v. … A speaker abuses a qualified privilege or immunity when he knows his statements are false.68 Davidson alleges Glenny and Skerrett “intentionally omitted key information” and “each knew” they were spreading false impressions

Deschamps v. Mason County Sheriff's Office

96 P.3d 413 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 17, 2004

RCW 9.41.0975 RCW 9.41.0975 provides qualified immunity for employees who prepare and issue or deny firearm licenses in good faith. … App. 614, 622-23 , 943 P.2d 298 (1997) ("It is particularly important that good faith (or its absence) in this qualified immunity situation be determined promptly ... a prompt determination is vital because qualified immunity

Segaline v. Department of Labor & Industries

144 Wash. App. 312 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 29, 2008

Clearly, claims challenging the communications themselves, here to 911 and police, are “based upon” the communication. ¶33 In Dang, Division One held that immunity under RCW 4.24.510 is not limited solely to communications … Because of this holding, we do not need to decide whether Croft had qualified immunity.

Aventis Pharmaceutical Inc, V Wa State Department Of Revenue

428 P.3d 389 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 16, 2018

The statute at issue required that for Stroh to qualify for the exemption, neither Stroh’s representative “‘[n]or any other person’” sell Stroh’s products in a permanent retail establishment. Stroh Brewery, 104 Wn. … 13 50641-6-II sold in any retail establishment.

Leah Campanelli, V. Peacehealth Southwest Medical Center

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 24, 2025

Under ER 702, an expert’s opinion can be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Whether an expert is qualified to render an opinion is a preliminary finding by the court under ER 104(a). … Establishing cause in fact involves a determination of what actually occurred and is generally left to the jury to decide. Id.

Carl W. Schwartz v. King County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 27, 2020

Thus, “[t]o qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was (1) open to members of the public (2) for recreational purposes and that (3) no fee was charged.” … This case is factually different from Jewels because, unlike in Jewels, expert testimony in this case clearly establishes there is a material dispute of facts as to latency.

Hertog v. City of Seattle

88 Wash. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 1997

It stated that when acting outside any judicial or quasi-judicial process, parole officers have only qualified immunity: We hold that parole officers are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity only for those functions they perform … Thus, Lake is protected only by qualified immunity. Lake’s protection does not extend to the County. 59 The County relies almost exclusively on McKenna to establish that Lake owed no duty to S.H.

Brown v. Labor Ready Northwest, Inc.

54 P.3d 166 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 16, 2002

Henson told Stevens he was qualified to operate heavy machinery. Stevens considered Henson a good worker. He asked Labor Ready about Henson's qualifications, and was advised Henson was qualified to operate a forklift. … its employer status and consequently its immunity under industrial insurance statutes.

Segaline v. STATE, DEPT. OF L&I

182 P.3d 480 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 29, 2008

Segaline then had to show by clear and convincing evidence that L & I abused its qualified immunity, i.e., that L & I knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity of its communications. … Croft did not learn of Segaline's arrest until after it had occurred. [11] Because of this holding, we do not need to decide whether Croft had qualified immunity.

Daniels v. Seattle Seahawks

92 Wash. App. 576 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 1998

immunity pursuant to RCW 51.24.030(1).” … Auld clearly desired, and consented to, the employment relationship. See Clerk’s Papers at 219. We recognize that despite the Seahawks’ physical control over Dr. Auld’s agreed upon functions, Dr.

Leah Campanelli, V. Peacehealth Southwest Medical Center

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 5, 2025

Under ER 702, an expert’s opinion can be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Whether an expert is qualified to render an opinion is a preliminary finding by the court under ER 104(a). … Establishing cause in fact involves a determination of what actually occurred and is generally left to the jury to decide. Id.

Ravenscroft v. Washington Water Power Co.

87 Wash. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 1997

The trial court refused to apply the recreational use statute to the County because the County was not in lawful possession and control of the premises and thus did not qualify for its immunity. … The court found WWP had sufficient possession and control of the area to qualify for the statute’s immunity, but held WWP may be liable because through its dams, WWP was able to manipulate the water level of the Reservoir

Michelle Dalen v. St. John Medical Center

436 P.3d 877 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 19, 2019

However, three actions in the ED clearly fall into this category: the blood draw, the catheterization, and the administering of medication. … Kranz’s alleged inflammatory response. 9 Even if the experts were qualified, their testimony also failed to establish the relevant standard of care, breach, and causation.