Case law

Seaples v. Card

246 F. 501 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 23, 1915

Privileges granted to a certain class by a special act are not affected by inconsistent general legislation, unless a contrary intent of the legislative body is clearly expressed or indubitably inferable therefrom. … When a claim is made under the homestead or pre-emption laws for a portion of the public domain that is subject to its disposition, that tribunal must determine whether or not the claimant is qualified to acquire lands under

Fernando v. Nieswandt

87 Wash. App. 103 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 28, 1997

He also testified that guardians ad litem are generally not qualified to make recommendations for the care of a child because they have no scientific training. … The statute which permits the court to appoint a guardian ad litem establishes the qualifications as well.

State v. Valladares

99 Wash. 2d 663 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1983

I Admission of Inculpatory Hearsay Statements The prosecution established that despite a good faith effort, it was impossible to obtain Barbara Campbell's presence. … In addition, there is no evidence either officer sought to offer immunity or some other reward for the statements.

Thompson v. Devlin

51 Wash. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 26, 1988

Read as a whole, chapter 392-151 clearly includes adult supervisors as members of the school safety patrols. … We believe the regulations of WAC 392-151 clearly satisfy the test adopted in Kness v. Truck Trailer Equip.

Tate v. Smith

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 28, 2020

Qualified Immunity 21 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 22 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … immunity. 21 B.

Grae-El v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 8, 2022

claim is barred by qualified immunity. … established” in order to find that the individually named State Defendants are entitled to qualified 22 immunity.

In re Dependency of A.M.F.

Washington Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2023

privilege’ and may not be required to ‘waive such immunity.’” … The child did not testify, and the State offered only her hearsay statements to establish that the abuse had happened. Id. at 251.

Hayden v. Knight

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 21, 2023

The Court also noted that legislative immunity 13 may protect the King County councilmembers, and that qualified immunity may protect the other 14 King County defendants. … Additionally, the remaining six 22 Defendants are likely immune from Plaintiff’s claims either under legislative or qualified 23 immunity. See supra § IV.A.

Cory And Melissa Jespersen, V Clark County

199 Wash. App. 568 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 5, 2017

We hold that the Jespersens cannot establish a violation of their substantive due process rights. Thus, their claim fails. C. … A municipality may qualify as a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 58, 830 P.2d 318 (1992).

State v. Sonneland

80 Wash. 2d 343 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1972

Clearly this evidences a legislative intent that the trial court alone is authorized to dismiss criminal charges. … We quote the state's version of the agreement from page 16 of its brief: The record clearly indicates that Mr.

United States v. Kallas

272 F. 742 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 30, 1921

He stated to you orally, did he, that what he had divulged to you was made voluntarily and without any promise of immunity or reward? Answer the question. I don’t want you to argue the matter. … This case comes clearly within the rule stated there. That was a ease of a written confession by a clerk of one of the departments of Louisville, Kentucky, who was afterwards arrested in the district of New York.

City of Pasco v. Department Retirement Systems

110 Wash. App. 582 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 22, 2002

Second, RCW 41.26.030(28) and (29), respectively, established an effective date to end LEOFF Plan 1 and established LEOFF Plan 2 for new employees after October 1, 1977. … Thus, Crabtree allowed members to qualify for Plan 1 after the cutoff date, even though the teachers did not establish membership eligibility before October 1, 1977. 12 Similarly, Andres was not “certified” as having met

Debra Koshelnik v. D.s.h.s.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 20, 2016

privilege or immunity and establishes all of the elements [of defamation].” … However, by virtue of the fact that the Department asserted the defense of qualified immunity in its motion for summary judgment, we accept that appellants have sued the defendants in their individual capacity.

Tesoro Refining v. State, Dept. of Revenue

246 P.3d 211 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 21, 2010

Bunker fuel is a qualifying fuel. … The amendment added language to the statute clearly limiting its applicability to wholesalers and retailers of qualifying fuel. RCW 82.04.433.

State v. Williams

135 Wash. App. 915 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 7, 2006

Hunter, 449 F.3d 978, 997 (9th Cir. 2006), which addresses California’s sexually violent predator statute, 3 for the proposition that there is no blanket qualified immunity allowing entities detaining SVPs to conduct a search … or seize property in an arbitrary or retaliatory manner, or in a manner that clearly exceeds the legitimate purpose of their detention.

Express Scripts, Inc., V State Of Wa Dept. Of Revenue

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 26, 2019

In a tax refund action, the taxpayer seeking the refund has the burden of establishing that the Department incorrectly assessed the tax and that the taxpayer is entitled to a refund. RCW 82.32.180. … Generally, the only way funds qualify for “pass-through” treatment is under WAC 458-22-111 (Rule 111). Washington Imaging, 171 Wn.2d at 559.

State v. Williams

146 P.3d 481 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 7, 2006

Hunter, 449 F.3d 978, 997 (9th Cir.2006), which addresses California's Sexually Violent Predator statute, [3] for the proposition that there is no blanket qualified immunity allowing entities detaining SVPs to conduct a search … or seize property in an arbitrary or retaliatory manner, or in a manner that clearly exceeds the legitimate purpose of their detention.

State v. Rich

184 Wash. 2d 897 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 2016

For this reason alone, proof of DUI, without more, does not establish proof of reckless endangerment. … For this reason alone, proof of speeding, without more, does not establish proof of reckless endangerment.

Roeder Co. v. K&E Moving & Storage Co.

102 Wash. App. 49 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 30, 2000

The record establishes that railroads paid significant amounts for both easements and fee simple purchases. 17 Therefore, the negligible consideration alone does not negate the conclusion that, when read in light of Brown … Courts must “conduct a deed-by-deed analysis to ascertain whether the parties clearly and expressly limited or qualified the interest granted, considering the express language, the form of the instrument, and the surrounding

Rodarte v. Skagit County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 26, 2021

was not clearly established.” … There is a clearly established right not to be subjected to criminal charges based on false 17 evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.