Case law

Corrigan v. Mason County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 25, 2025

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976) (rejecting 14 the idea a prosecutor is entitled to only qualified immunity). … Plaintiff misstates the law when he asserts Mullen is protected only by 22 qualified immunity.

Grenning v. Key

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 2, 2023

rights, 13 Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. … A 14 “clearly established right,” for purposes of determining whether a public official is 15 entitled to qualified immunity, is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable 16 official would have understood

Mason v. King County

142 P.3d 637 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2006

A court may grant relief on a land use decision only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the following standards is met: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged … KCC 19A.28.020(C)(2) prohibits approval of a BLA that would "[r]esult in a lot that does not qualify as a building site pursuant to [KCC Title 19A]."

State v. Fish

992 P.2d 505 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 22, 1999

Fish also argues that because the State granted transactional immunity to Shawlee Westmoreland, it should have done the same for Baxter. … The decision to grant immunity is vested with the prosecution, and a defendant has no right to demand immunity for a defense witness in order to obtain exculpatory testimony unless a court finds the prosecutor's misconduct

City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc.

152 Wash. 2d 343 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 9, 2004

[Use of such] places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. Hague, 307 U.S. at 515 . … Conclusion Washington follows federal forum analysis and Vincent has established that utility poles are not a traditional public forum.

In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation

214 F.R.D. 614 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 7, 2003

, after liability to the class is established.’ ”) (quoting earlier opinion at 184 F.R.D. 311, 340 (C.D.Cal.1998)). … Even individuals in possession of receipts would not be immune from extensive inquiry.

Chadwick Farms Owners Ass'n v. FHC, LLC

166 Wash. 2d 178 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 2009

If those claims are valid and FHC failed to make provision for paying them, then FHC did not properly wind up its affairs — it clearly knew of the claims at the time it was canceled. … (While there are certain exceptions to individual immunity, as mentioned and explained below, the general rule is immunity.)

J-U-B Engineers, Inc. v. Routsen

69 Wash. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 23, 1993

This court cannot grant a judgment, even by default, when it clearly has no merit. (Citations omitted.) For all practical purposes, the court sua sponte raised a defense for Dr. … Routson, having suffered only a default at this point, can move to set aside the order of default pursuant to CR 55(c)(1) for the purpose of presenting a defense of qualified privilege.

Wilkinson v. Rodgers

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2023

The 11 plain language of the Position Statement clearly indicates certain activities may be 12 subject to disciplinary action. … role, and finding the remaining defendants entitled to qualified 7 immunity where their participation in the disciplinary hearings was not integral to 8 the ultimate licensure suspension); see also RCW 18.71.015, RCW

State v. Walker

11 Wash. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 22, 1974

“The defense does not so much establish innocence as grant immunity from prosecution for criminal acts concededly committed.” Carbajal-Portillo v. United States, 396 F.2d 944, 948 (9th Cir. 1968). … The evidence did not lead the trial court to find that the officers had crossed the line into the precluded area where it followed that the motivation to violate the law had come from government. *89 Clearly entrapment is

State ex rel. Makris v. Superior Court

113 Wash. 296 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1920

The twenty-third section of the Bill of Rights provides that ‘the general assembly shall not gránt to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all … Such cases do not deal with constitutional rights so clearly ascertainable as those drawn in question in this case.

Detention of Marshall v. State

156 Wash. 2d 150 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2005

Accord In re Det. of Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d 1, 7-8 , 51 P.3d 73 (2002). ¶ 14 Proof of a recent overt act may be required to establish current dangerousness. … Phenix would be used only to prepare to testify in a lawsuit, and her opinion was therefore not admissible under ER 703. ¶ 26 The statutory definition of the practice of psychology is clearly broader than Mr.

State v. Longshore

141 Wash. 2d 414 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 2000

Under a grant of transactional immunity, Irvin, the driver of the vehicle, testified on behalf of the State. … But substantial evidence was presented at trial by qualified experts to demonstrate there is, in fact, a quantifiable market value for uncertified clams.

Hefa v. Hanratty

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 10, 2022

No. 4 at 4, 7–14.) 2 Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they are entitled to qualified 3 immunity as to Plaintiff’s federal law claims and that Plaintiff waived any state law … established as needed to defeat a qualified 9 immunity defense; and (3) any potential § 1985 conspiracy claim would fail in the absence of a 10 viable § 1983 claim.

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital v. Washington State Department of Health

717 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 25, 2010

Hybrid restraints are not immune from anti-trust liability. … The Court holds that the NHPRDA clearly authorized PCI CON regulations such as the one at issue.

Anna Chester v. Deep Roots Tatoo & Body Modification

193 Wash. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 4, 2016

Chester argues in the alternative that she established the elements of common law negligence. … Dinges then draws the conclusion that, in the circumstances of the present case, "clearly 'sterile instruments' were not used."

Frank's Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission

242 F. Supp. 3d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 15, 2017

The IGRA established the NIGC within the. … Accordingly, under Chevron , the Court must first determine whether Congress has clearly established that the Community qualifies under the IGRA’s definition of “Indian tribe.” See Ramirez-Zavala v.

Alpine Ridge Group v. Kemp

764 F. Supp. 1393 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 16, 1991

In sum, the contract clearly elects the formula method, one of two statutorily authorized methods for calculating rent adjustments. … Enforcement Prohibited by Sovereign Immunity HUD contends that sovereign immunity, absent a waiver, prohibits an award of money damages through specific enforcement of contract rights.

Hotel Cecil Co. v. City of Seattle

104 Wash. 460 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1918

Again, for ascertaining the test as to whether the city is acting governmentally, and hence immune from liability, what difference in reason can there be whether the action be that of negligence or trespass? … The trial court clearly observed and applied the proper rule in these cases. The judgment in each case is affirmed. Main, C. J., Mount, Holcomb, Tolman, and Parker, JJ., concur.

To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins

100 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2000

The court also dismissed the section 1983 claim, ruling that the State had qualified immunity. … The court concluded: [The statute is] directed essentially to students, who desire to qualify so as to secure a license to act as a hairdresser and to engage in the practice of beauty culture, rather than to beauty schools