Case law

Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.

632 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 19, 2009

Congress can waive a tribe’s immunity from suit, but that waiver must be clearly expressed. Congress has plenary power over tribal sovereignty, but must make clear its intent to limit that sovereignty. … However, such a conclusion is of dubious validity inasmuch as a tribe’s disposal activities would clearly be subject to regulation under RCRA as well as SDWA and the CWA.

Gamboa v. King County

562 F. Supp. 2d 1288 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 7, 2008

Police officers are, however, entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Qualified immunity shields government officials, acting within one of their discretionary functions, from civil liability as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Latimer v. Western MacHinery Exchange

42 Wash. 2d 756 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1953

In other words, we now hold that the so-called immunity provision of the workmen’s compensation act, the provision in RCW 51.24.010 just referred to, does not bar an action by a self-employed individual for negligence causing … , that, inasmuch as “any individual employer or any member or officer of any corporate employer” engaged in extrahazardous employment may elect to take under the workmen’s compensation act, such persons are bound by the immunity

Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co.

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2014

(dissenting) may qualify for the immunity. RCW 4.24.210. … 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.

Jim v. Washington Territory

1 Wash. Terr. 63 · Washington Territory · Dec 15, 1859

Their qualifications, when so selected, must correspond with those required by law, and by-standers returned as qualified, will be presumed to be so qualified, until the contrary is shown. … for acts of indiscriminate and barbarous murder, on the plea of legal hostility, we are clearly of the opinion that the plea of an Indian war cannot avail to secure immunity for acts of treachery and murder committed by

Miller v. Pacific County

91 Wash. 2d 744 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1979

There are two clearly established foundations in this case. First, the defendants exceeded the scope of their authority in denying payment of appellant's vouchers without a formal revision of the county budget. … There a county commissioner was granted absolute immunity in his legislative capacity for a vote cast upon a formal resolution, but was limited to the protection afforded by qualified immunity in his duties revolving the

John v. Berry

469 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 18, 2006

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state officials “performing discretionary functions [are protected] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, “an official is denied qualified immunity only if the law was clearly established and a reasonable official could not have believed the conduct was lawful.” Id.

Hertog v. City of Seattle

88 Wash. App. 41 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 1997

It stated that when acting outside any judicial or quasi-judicial process, parole officers have only qualified immunity: We hold that parole officers are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity only for those functions they perform … Thus, Lake is protected only by qualified immunity. Lake’s protection does not extend to the County. 59 The County relies almost exclusively on McKenna to establish that Lake owed no duty to S.H.

Adams v. King County

164 Wash. 2d 640 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2008

Consistent with this purpose, the WAGA established procedures to facilitate the procurement of anatomical gifts. … Establishing good faith immunity serves the legislative purpose by encouraging potential *656 donees to seek anatomical gifts without increasing the risk of liability.

Pete v. Tacoma School District No. 10

198 F. Supp. 3d 1206 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 2016

Analyzing qualified immunity is a two-pronged test, considering (1) whether the conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established. Saucier v. … The parties should first focus them discovery on issues of qualified immunity. a.

Brown v. Labor Ready Northwest, Inc.

54 P.3d 166 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 16, 2002

Henson told Stevens he was qualified to operate heavy machinery. Stevens considered Henson a good worker. He asked Labor Ready about Henson's qualifications, and was advised Henson was qualified to operate a forklift. … its employer status and consequently its immunity under industrial insurance statutes.

Segaline v. STATE, DEPT. OF L&I

182 P.3d 480 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 29, 2008

Segaline then had to show by clear and convincing evidence that L & I abused its qualified immunity, i.e., that L & I knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity of its communications. … Croft did not learn of Segaline's arrest until after it had occurred. [11] Because of this holding, we do not need to decide whether Croft had qualified immunity.

Adams v. King County

192 P.3d 891 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2008

Consistent with this purpose, the WAGA established procedures to facilitate the procurement of anatomical gifts. … Establishing good faith immunity serves the legislative purpose by encouraging potential donees to seek anatomical gifts without increasing the risk of liability.

Daniels v. Seattle Seahawks

92 Wash. App. 576 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 1998

immunity pursuant to RCW 51.24.030(1).” … Auld clearly desired, and consented to, the employment relationship. See Clerk’s Papers at 219. We recognize that despite the Seahawks’ physical control over Dr. Auld’s agreed upon functions, Dr.

Engelmohr v. Bache

66 Wash. 2d 103 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1965

Study Group was an administrative body, that the hearing in which the defendants testified was an administrative proceeding which was not quasi-judicial in nature, and that defendants, therefore, were afforded, at most, a qualified … privilege wherein false statements were immune from a defamation action only if made in good faith and without malice.

Leah Campanelli, V. Peacehealth Southwest Medical Center

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 5, 2025

Under ER 702, an expert’s opinion can be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Whether an expert is qualified to render an opinion is a preliminary finding by the court under ER 104(a). … Establishing cause in fact involves a determination of what actually occurred and is generally left to the jury to decide. Id.

Ravenscroft v. Washington Water Power Co.

87 Wash. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 1997

The trial court refused to apply the recreational use statute to the County because the County was not in lawful possession and control of the premises and thus did not qualify for its immunity. … The court found WWP had sufficient possession and control of the area to qualify for the statute’s immunity, but held WWP may be liable because through its dams, WWP was able to manipulate the water level of the Reservoir

Segaline v. Department of Labor & Industries

169 Wash. 2d 467 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2010

. ¶1 — We are asked to decide whether a government agency qualifies as a “person” under RCW 4.24.510. … Does a government agency qualify as a “person” under RCW 4.24.510?

Michelle Dalen v. St. John Medical Center

436 P.3d 877 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 19, 2019

However, three actions in the ED clearly fall into this category: the blood draw, the catheterization, and the administering of medication. … Kranz’s alleged inflammatory response. 9 Even if the experts were qualified, their testimony also failed to establish the relevant standard of care, breach, and causation.

Madison v. State

161 Wash. 2d 85 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2007

Respondents have failed to establish that felons’ right to vote qualifies as an important right under federal case law. … Johnson’s concurrence would have this court limit the right to vote, for purposes of the privileges and immunities clause, to “ ‘the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state