Case law

King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH

979 P.2d 374 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1999

The County further argued that the UGA provisions in the CPPs were not internally inconsistent and clearly mandated that the Bear Creek area be designated a UGA. … It held that CPPs may be directive and that King County's CPPs clearly mandated that the Bear Creek area be designated urban.

Brutsche v. City of Kent

78 Wash. App. 370 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 1995

The limitation period applicable to section 1983 actions is clearly three years. Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 85-86 . … The City identifies only one analogous limitation period: the 30-day period during which its qualified electors may challenge an ordinance through the referendum process.

HO-CHUAN CHEN v. Dougherty

625 F. Supp. 2d 1091 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 17, 2008

Among other things, the Court rejected the individual Defendants’ argument that they were entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 9.) … Defendants submitted an interlocutory appeal on the qualified immunity ruling and the Ninth Circuit issued a decision on March 21, 2007. (See Dkt. Nos. Ill & 127.)

Rafn Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries

104 Wash. App. 947 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 15, 2001

In effect, the fifth proviso of RCW 51.16.060 codifies Lunday and clearly defines when a hiring company’s liability will accrue. Wash. Const, art. … Spokane Culvert & Fabricating Co., 91 Wn.2d 550 , 588 P.2d 1174 (1979) (holding employer utilizing temporary worker not necessarily immune from tort liability).

Carter

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 9, 2026

In addition, it is well established that, under the Eleventh 19 Amendment, a nonconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by its own 20 citizens. See Edelman v. … Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9–12 (1991) (judicial immunity); Imbler v. 4 Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430–31 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity). 5 “Judges are absolutely immune from damages actions for judicial acts taken

Fosbre v. State

76 Wash. 2d 255 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1969

Some statutes removing governmental tort immunity have placed limitations on the amounts for which the state or other governmental subdivision could be liable. … Tacoma, 63 Wn.2d 913, 918 , 390 P.2d 2 (1964), the legislature has clearly indicated its intention to change the public policy of the state by its adoption of the state's Torts Claims Act; and we noted in Evangelical United

Snyder v. Medical Service Corp.

98 Wash. App. 315 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 2, 1999

Employer Immunity. We begin by noting Ms. … To establish a claim, Ms.

Riley-Hordyk v. Bethel School District

187 Wash. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 19, 2015

Uncontroverted testimony at the hearing established that Riley-Hordyk was endorsed to teach only one subject — Spanish—and that no open teaching positions existed for which she qualified. ¶32 Because no Spanish teaching positions … Riley-Hordyk also cites to RCW 28A.405.230, which establishes the process for transfer of an administrator to a subordinate certificated position.

Alem v. Diaz

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 16, 2022

The 20 Court gave Plaintiff 21 days to cure the complaint’s defects by alleging facts that, if true, would 21 show that (1) the conduct at issue violated clearly established law; (2) Chief Diaz participated in, 22 directed … Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient facts 9 supporting his conclusions and contains no legal theory that would overcome qualified immunity 10 or prosecutorial immunity. (See generally Dkt. No. 6.)

Stenson v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 13, 2024

Legal Standard 12 Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages 13 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … No Qualified Immunity for Excessive Force Claim 18 The Parties dispute whether the law is clearly established that Leenstra acted in violation 19 of the Fourth Amendment by shooting Sarrett without

McDowell v. AUSTIN COMPANY

105 Wash. 2d 48 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1985

Parties are free to establish liability instead of negligence as the triggering mechanism of an indemnity contract. See, e.g., Continental Cas. Co. v. … The court held the indemnity clause at issue unenforceable because it was ambiguous in three respects: It failed to state expressly an intent (1) to deprive the indemnitor of his immunity as an employer under the Industrial

Shinn v. Thrust IV, Inc.

56 Wash. App. 827 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 12, 1990

The court found that Thrust's breaches caused substantial delay and cost increases "documented in the various cost breakdowns submitted as exhibits", and that the evidence established "with reasonable certainty" a "diminution … A party qualifies as a "seller" under the act if his or her acts were a substantial contributive factor in the sales transaction. Haberman, at 130.

Robinson v. Employment Security Department

84 Wash. App. 774 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 23, 1996

We reverse because Robinson has established that she quit for good cause after exhausting all reasonable alternatives. … This finding is not clearly erroneous. The fact that the DFI had not issued a cease and desist order when Robinson quit, however, is not material.

Ehrhart v. King County

Washington Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2020

Second, Ehrhart does not establish that King County had actual knowledge of a violation. … Finally, Ehrhart does not establish that King County’s actions violated WAC 246-101-505.

Sherman v. State

905 P.2d 355 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1995

Given that the memorandum clearly *371 articulated that AAG Milam was acting as counsel for the University, even if Dr. … To establish a violation of the Act, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that: (1) he or she is a "handicapped individual" under the Act; (2) he or she is "otherwise qualified" for the position sought; (3) he or

Thompson v. Central Valley School District No 365

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 15, 2024

Thus, Mr. 9 Small is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his decision to place 10 Plaintiff on administrative leave. 11 Similarly, it was not clearly established … Additionally, the 20 individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly 21 established under the facts of this case that transferring Plaintiff to a teaching 22 position could violate

Arthur West, V. Washington State Legislature

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 24, 2026

However, a PRA request itself – before the commencement of any legal action in the courts – does not qualify as a civil action. … Beno clearly involved a “civil action” – the administrative assistant was subpoenaed to testify in ongoing litigation.

Campbell v. State, Department of Social and Health Services

150 Wash. 2d 881 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2004

The statute clearly does not apply to medical conditions, here in particular orthopedic conditions, that do not involve cognitive or intellectual impairment like that of mental retardation. … Second, the claimant has not established justifiable reliance.

Anderson v. O'BRIEN

84 Wash. 2d 64 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1974

These attributes of sovereignty qualify the tribe as an entity with wholly public functions. … none may in law be afforded special privileges or immunities.

Tofte v. City of Longview

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 23, 2024

immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for 10 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … immunity.”).