Case law

Le v. Urquhart

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 22, 2021

Immunity: Deputy Molina asks the Court to decide, or 8 clarify that it has decided, the portion of his earlier motion for summary judgment in which he supposedly invoked qualified immunity as to the Fourteenth … The analysis explained that the questions of whether Deputy Molina used excessive force and whether he 14 violated a “clearly established

Richey v. Duncan

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2024

Qualified Immunity 19 “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold 20 public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the … to show a violation of a constitutional 26 right and (2) whether that right was “clearly established at the time of the 27 violation.”

Singer v. Hara

11 Wash. App. 247 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 20, 1974

The Supreme Court, noting that “the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according … to enter into the relationship not only is clearly implied from such cases, but also was deemed by the court ip each case to be so obvious as not to require recitation.

Intercity Hospital Ass'n v. Squire

56 F. Supp. 472 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 26, 1944

This is not supported by the evidence, as it is clearly established that the rental charged during the period here involved and the price ultimately paid for the properties in question were not excessive nor an amount above … The facts clearly show that none of the net earnings inure to the benefit of any private individual. 1 find the plaintiff is entitled to recover herein.

State Of Washington, Appellant/cross-resp v. Cory Pratt, Resp./cross-appellant

454 P.3d 875 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 2019

It argues that Pratt did not qualify for this sentencing option because he did not have the required statutory connection with the victim to qualify for a SSOSA sentence. … We conclude the word “established” modifies both “relationship” and “connection,” meaning that the statute requires an “established relationship with” or an “established connection to” the victim.

In Re the Recall of Wade

115 Wash. 2d 544 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1990

Although school districts have been directed to establish affirmative action plans designed to eliminate discrimination against women, districts may not deny anyone employment on the basis of sex. … The petition does not allege acts "clearly amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance or violation of the oath of office." Teaford , at 584 (quoting Chandler , at 274).

Marzan v. Kovacs

143 Wash. 2d 412 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 12, 2001

Paternity was never established. Fleming decided to give up her son for adoption. … In fact, the Legislature indicated so in RCW 26.33.130(2), stating: “[a]n order terminating the parent-child relationship divests the parent and the child of all legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, and obligations

Xenith Group, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries

167 Wash. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 26, 2012

All Xenith providers signed paperwork that clearly stated they were independent contractors, not employees. ¶5 The IAJ recommended reversing the assessment. … It also determined Xenith failed to establish several of the six elements of the test for excluding coverage for certain independent contractors.

Multicare Health System v. Department of Social & Health Services

173 Wash. App. 289 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 29, 2013

One Medicaid program is the MN program for low-income families. ¶4 To qualify for the MN program, a family’s income has to be less than a certain amount established by regulations (called the “medically needy income level … And the federal regulations clearly contemplate that the Department can adjust the Hospital’s charges based on the spenddown, providing that “States must reduce the amount of provider charges that would otherwise be reimbursable

Webb v. Neuroeducation Inc., PC

88 P.3d 417 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 22, 2004

Webb used the term "believe" multiple times, to guess at things he clearly could not know. For example, Mr. Webb related he believed Ms. Ellis gave misinformation to Dr. … Chupurdia appropriately did not assert a statutory immunity defense.

Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co.

90 Wash. 2d 323 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1978

Robertson, is covered by the State Industrial Insurance Act and is immune from liability in any action for Kelley's injuries. … This authority over work conditions clearly falls within the rubric of "control" as an exception to the common-law rule of nonliability.

Adult Entertainment Center, Inc. v. Pierce County

57 Wash. App. 435 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 29, 1990

It clearly constitutes a fundamental purpose. The ordinance is also designed to deal with the problems identified. We agree with the court in Wall Distribs., Inc. v. … The support for this proposition is well established by a long line of cases in which the Supreme Court has held that corporations cannot claim the protection of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Rodeen v. Department of Employment Security

47 Wash. App. 60 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 1987

The issue on appeal is whether Rodeen quit her job for "good cause" so as to qualify her for unemployment compensation benefits under RCW 50.20.050. … In keeping with this policy, a claimant who becomes voluntarily unemployed must establish "good cause" by demonstrating that (1) the claimant left work primarily because of a work-connected factor of such a compelling nature

State v. Modest

88 Wash. App. 239 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 7, 1997

The determination of who qualifies as a guardian depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Wood, 52 Wn. App. at 163 . … Clearly a telephone bill is not an assertive statement and is not excludable as hearsay.

W.H. v. Olympia School Dist.

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020

Further, to whatever extent sovereign immunity may have protected school districts from discrimination lawsuits prior to the WLAD, the WLAD clearly abrogated that sovereign immunity when it created a private cause of action … There, we noted, “The Law Against Discrimination enacted in 1949 did not specifically waive the State's sovereign immunity to suit in court, but instead established a state agency to process

Peterson v. Littlejohn

56 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 13, 1989

Seattle, 99 Wn.2d 582, 593-94 , 664 P.2d 492 (1983), the court held: The method of determining probable cause or the lack thereof is set out in Peasley , at pages 499-500, as follows: If it clearly appears that the defendant … In Washington sovereign immunity has been abolished and immunity from tort liability for acts taken during criminal investigations has been limited to policy level or "discretionary acts".

In Re Dyer

20 P.3d 907 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2001

In conclusion, the Deputy Director found that Dyer "clearly does not qualify for participation in the extended family visits program based on existing standards." [8] In March 1995, the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board … The majority says DOC's decision to place someone in the program is a matter of discretion, majority at 914, but there is no discretion to deny an entitlement established by rule and required *919 for a qualified recipient

National Bank of Commerce v. Reinhardt

34 Wash. 2d 319 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1949

The rule expressed in the foregoing paragraph is, however, significantly qualified by the clause “which is not clearly intended as a mark of personal regard only.” … In such a situation, the concluding clause is mere surplusage, and cannot be given the effect of qualifying the unequivocal opening language.

State v. McDonald

89 Wash. 2d 256 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1977

It was clearly within the trial court's discretion to admit the testimony of Mr. Mitchell and Dr. McCoy. … Those who are commonly regarded as "odd" or "unsound" *273 or even "deranged" would not normally qualify.

Home Depot USA v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE

215 P.3d 222 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 25, 2009

Home Depot contracted with a financing company to establish the private label credit card. … If it is a tax preference, we must read any statute establishing the preference no more broadly than necessary to fulfill its legislative purpose.