Case law

Petersen v. State

100 Wash. 2d 421 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1983

If these preliminary questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, then the challenged act, omission, or decision can, with a reasonable degree of assurance, be classified as a discretionary governmental … It also claims that the testimony of other psychiatrists must be presented to establish what standard of care the professional community would require.

Scott v. City of Seattle

99 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 13, 1999

Plaintiffs fail to establish a substantive due process claim under the federal or state constitutions. C." … Otherwise, one would be able to obtain immunity from state regulation by making private contractual arrangements.” United States Trust Co. v.

In re the Marriage of King

162 Wash. 2d 378 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2007

The cases establishing a right to counsel mention and rely on the fact that the full resources of the State are brought to bear in termination and dependency proceedings. … In addition, Snohomish County Legal Services determined that she qualified for referral to pro bono counsel. CP at 56-59. As to her indigency, the trial court entered no findings on the question. Mr.

Watkins v. City of Olympia

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2024

Winner—are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims. 8 Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than … immunity: (1) whether the facts alleged show that the officer violated a 16 constitutional right; and if so, (2) whether the right was clearly

Miles v. CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES DEPT.

6 P.3d 112 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 18, 2000

A plaintiff may not sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. [34] A plaintiff bears the burden of identifying *121 and showing such a right. [35] The Miles … Feldman and Children's were not immune, the plaintiffs would *122 be unable to establish causation.

Icicle/Bunk, LLC v. Chelan County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 17, 2023

Icicle appeals, arguing that its use of the property as two short-term rentals clearly qualifies as an existing nonconforming use under the Chelan County Code. … DENIAL OF PERMIT Icicle argues that the hearing examiner erred in denying its permit because, under Chelan County’s Short-Term Rental Code, its use of the property for two short-term rentals clearly qualifies as

Jain v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

130 Wash. 2d 688 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1996

By blindly applying the Bradbury rule, the majority ignores both United States Supreme Court precedent, which clearly holds that fully settled or adjudicated cases are beyond the reach of otherwise fully retroactive decisional … In the case at bar, the majority justifies its holding on the unstable precedent established in Bradbury .

Skycorp, Ltd., V. King County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 13, 2024

Finally, the County argues that SkyCorp has failed to demonstrate that KCC 10.30.020 is a “‘clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious’” exercise of King County’s police power. … ’ for granting the privilege or immunity.”

Lopez v. Johns Manville

649 F. Supp. 149 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 1986

Such agreements purporting to deprive an employer of the immunity provided by the Industrial Insurance Act are disfavored under Washington law, and any intent to provide for indemnification must be clearly expressed in the … Clearly, an employer subject to the LHWCA before amendment does not abide in circumstances similar to the United States subject to the FTCA and the FECA.

State v. Nelson

72 Wash. 2d 269 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1967

These facts, coincident with the massive wound on the victim’s forearm and elbow, clearly are compatible with the state’s theory of the case, and enable a jury finding that Damitio had been shot at close range by a missile … Kennedy, 19 Wn.2d 152 , 142 P.2d 247 (1943) ), and a qualified expert may express an opinion on an ultimate fact. State v. Hedin, 67 Wn.2d 542 , 408 P.2d 245 (1965).

Johnson v. Clark County Sheriff

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 14, 2023

immunity, Dkt. 42. … Dkt. 27. 1 Johnson’s motion asks the Court to determine as a matter of law that Deputy 2 Joachim and Officer Murray are not entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 42 at 1.

Cornelius v. Department of Ecology

182 Wash. 2d 574 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 12, 2015

We will overturn an agency’s factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 594 . … We apply the “clearly erroneous” standard of review to an agency’s DNS. Nor. Hill Pres. & Prot. Ass’n v.

United States v. Hoffman

116 P.3d 999 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2005

summary judgment that the CPA's provisions violate the United States Constitution's supremacy clause (article VI, clause 2) and commerce clause (article I, section 8, clause 3), and extend beyond any waiver of sovereign immunity … As the phrase "and other discarded material" suggests, every material that qualifies as "solid waste" must be in some way "discarded."

Rosencrantz v. Territory

2 Wash. Terr. 267 · Washington Territory · Jul 15, 1884

The question is as to the meaning of 2078 of the Code, which provides, “all qualified electors shall be competent to serve as petit jurors, and all qualified electors and householders shall be competent to serve as grand … Therefore, to hold that the Legislature, in passing the law now incorporated in the Code as Section 2078, meant to establish a rule relating to jurors which might be materially altered and changed every time the Legislature

Marci Peterhans, V. University Of Washington, Et Ano

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 30, 2025

[T]he demonstration of slight care is all that is required to maintain that immunity [under the ITA]. … This suicide attempt was clearly foreseeable under the circumstances and clearly preventable by not discharging him at that time.

Washington-Oregon Shippers Cooperative Ass'n v. Schumacher

59 Wash. 2d 159 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1961

WOSCA qualifies for an exemption under 49 U. S. C. § 1002 (c), and, there *162 fore, is not subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission as a freight forwarder. … The members could arrange their transactions individually and enjoy the tax immunities of the commerce clause..

Tucson v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 27, 2024

immunity due to inadequate evidence; and (5) 2 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. … The Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the 12 jury found that they violated clearly established law.

Korter v. City of Lakewood

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 6, 2024

Qualified Immunity 10 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 11 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. 21 The second step of the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right was 22 clearly established at the time of the conduct—requires courts

Tyner v. DSHS, Child Protective Serv.

1 P.3d 1148 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2000

As this court noted, the Legislature has granted caseworkers only a qualified immunity even in the case of an emergency situation. Id. at 607 , 809 P.2d 143 . … Brown were dismissed before trial on the grounds of witness immunity. Ms.

Langworthy v. Washington Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 21, 2025

Langworthy faces is establishing a waiver of 24 those agencies’ sovereign immunity. She has not identified a basis for such waiver, and must do 1 so in any amended complaint. See Kohn v. … To make out a prima 10 facie case under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a 11 “qualified individual with a disability,” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); (2) she is “otherwise qualified