Case law

Kauzlarich v. Yarbrough

105 Wash. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 9, 2001

We do not address whether there is an absolute privilege or immunity because we hold that there is a qualified privilege and a statutory privilege that cover this situation. B. … Therefore, we hold that Kauzlarich has not established that Yarbrough abused the qualified privilege in making his statement and, thus, summary judgment was proper. II.

Spencer v. Peters

907 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 2, 2012

For all those actions not covered by absolute immunity, Peters maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity. He' further argues that Mr. … Qualified Immunity Like Davidson and Krause, Peters argues he is entitled to qualified immunity based on: (1) probable cause, (2) Mr.

Marthaller v. King County Hospital District No. 2

94 Wash. App. 911 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 29, 1999

The Paramedics Are Statutorily Immune From Liability RCW 18.71.210 provides paramedics with qualified *916 immunity from liability for their acts or omissions in rendering emergency medical services. … The defendant claimed qualified immunity under RCW 18.130.175(7) that grants immunity to a person who, in good faith, reports information concerning substance abuse by health professionals. See Dutton, 87 Wn.

Evans v. Thompson

124 Wash. 2d 435 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1994

The interest of the Department in reimbursement from the recovery from a third party, RCW 51.24.040, clearly supports that policy. … Further, the burden is on the Defendants to establish their claimed immunity as coemployees. CR 8(c); Superior Asphalt & Concrete Co. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 19 Wn.

Coast Pacific Trading, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

105 Wash. 2d 912 · Washington Supreme Court · May 22, 1986

The Department of Revenue established a rule to define the circumstances in which a taxpayer can qualify for an "export sales" exemption from Washington's business and occupation tax. See WAC 458-20-193C. … The parties agree that in this enactment the Department intended to codify *917 the requirements for immunity established by United States Supreme Court decisions.

Ferrel v. Brown

847 F. Supp. 1524 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 19, 1993

LEXIS 11933, at *9-10 (D.Idaho July 19, 1993) (holding individual IRS agents are shielded by qualified immunity from constitutional tort claims arising from tax levies); Waring Park v. … Clearly, the plaintiff is unable to seek award of litigation costs from this court proceeding as the substantive claims are dismissed and thus she has not prevailed.

F. D. Rich Co. v. State

79 Wash. 2d 296 · Washington Supreme Court · May 13, 1971

qualify these corporations to do business in. the state of Washington.. … The plaintiff suggests that this language clearly indicates that the United States undertook a contractual obligation to pay.

Thomas v. City of Seattle

395 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2005

Qualified Immunity of Officer Martin Qualified immunity is an “entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Saucier v. … As a result, the court denies Officer Martin’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. 3.

Dutton v. Washington Physicians Health Program

87 Wash. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 21, 1997

Ill Qualified Immunity of the Program Dr. … It is particularly important that good faith (or its *623 absence) in this qualified immunity situation be determined promptly. As our Supreme Court observed in Robinson v.

Sinclair v. City of Grandview

973 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, including police officers, from liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Even where an officer’s actions amount to a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the injury.

Locke v. City of Seattle

137 P.3d 52 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 19, 2006

" to RCW 41.26.281, we find that the provision is clearly applied alike to all members of the designated class. … We also reject the city's argument that trainees such as Locke are not qualified LEOFF members because they are not fully-trained fire fighters.

Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co.

179 Wash. 2d 684 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2014

The legislature has clearly decided that the inducement of immunity is necessary to encourage recreational use, i.e., the type of public use that is of concern under the statute. ¶61 The court should hold that to come within … Initially, it is not true that any activity on land that is or might be recreational use under the statute automatically qualifies for the immunity.

Kauzlarich v. Yarbrough

20 P.3d 946 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2001

We do not address whether there is an absolute privilege or immunity because we hold that there is a qualified privilege and a statutory privilege that cover this situation. B. … Therefore, we hold that Kauzlarich has not established that Yarbrough abused the qualified privilege in making his statement and, thus, summary judgment was proper. II.

Mitchell v. Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals

109 Wash. App. 88 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 13, 2001

A statute affords qualifying veterans a preference in public employment in recognition of service rendered to their country. … Mitchell argues that this statute establishes an absolute preference for veterans who have the physical capacity to do a job.

Moline v. City of Castle Rock

528 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 14, 2005

violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Defendants McNew, Queen, and McCoy are entitled to qualified immunity and to summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff Moline's claims against them.

Manning v. Washington

463 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The defendants contend that Troopers Clevenger and Ducommon are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate Mr. Manning’s clearly established constitutional rights. … The Court should therefore decline to hold, at this point, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants are not precluded from raising the issue of qualified immunity at trial. E.

Kerr v. Olson

59 Wash. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 4, 1990

The doctors contend that regardless of the contractual language identifying them as independent contractors, they both qualify under the act as "workers" and as such automatically qualify as co-workers. … We hold that the services of a physician whether engaged in the employment of the employer or working under an independent contract, which is to render personal service, qualifies for third party immunity pursuant to ROW

Donna Zink & Jeff Zink v. City of Mesa

17 Wash. App. 2d 701 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 1, 2021

Zink was arrested without probable cause, Mayor Ross is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can insulate a governmental official from liability for an unlawful arrest under § 1983. … The question of qualified immunity is different from causation. Qualified immunity turns on whether a governmental official’s conduct was objectively reasonable based on clearly established law. See Furfaro v.

Castillo v. Gardner

854 F. Supp. 725 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 31, 1994

Defendants’ second argument for summary judgment is that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … “Prison officials who have implemented a digital rectal probe policy are entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of the clearly established law at the time, a reasonable official could have believed that his conduct was

Forest v. State

62 Wash. App. 363 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 1991

Clearly, this result would eliminate the beneficial and rehabilitative functions of parole. That is not in the public interest. … State, 116 Wn.2d 596 , 809 P.2d 143 (1991), denying caseworkers absolute immunity, also prevents the State from using whatever qualified immunity may exist. 3 RCW 70.96A.120(2) requires that a police officer take into custody