Case law

Wynn v. Earin

163 Wash. 2d 361 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2008

This kind of testimony is clearly encompassed by the witness immunity rule. … Wynn maintains that because he successfully established some violations of the Act, i.e., Ms.

Costanich v. Department of Social & Health Services

164 Wash. 2d 925 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2008

. ¶1 This case asks us to determine whether RCW 4.84.350, which provides a statutory cap on attorney fees, establishes a limit for each level of judicial review of an agency action or on all levels of review combined. … We agree that the EAJA, similar to its federal counterpart, provides a partial waiver of sovereign immunity in allowing litigants to recover fees and costs from the State.

Automotive United Trades Organization v. State

175 Wash. 2d 214 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2012

A substantial interest that “arises from terms in bargained contracts” may qualify. Am. Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. … Accordingly, a determination that a party was “necessary” often led to a rubber-stamping of the party as “indispensable.” ¶33 To counter this trend, federal joinder rules were amended in 1966 to clearly “condition [ ] a finding

Davis v. Clark County

966 F. Supp. 2d 1106 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 20, 2013

Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The motion for qualified immunity should be denied. 3.

State Ex Rel. Sater v. State Board of Pilotage Commissioners

198 Wash. 695 · Washington Supreme Court · May 2, 1939

We are clearly of the opinion that appellants Landstrom and Jensen should have been permitted to take the examination on June 11, 1935, and that for the benefit of these two appellants, at least, the board should be compelled … I, of our state constitution, we find the same guaranty, in substance, as follows: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation, other than municipal, privileges or immunities which,

Segaline v. State, Dept. of Labor & Indus.

238 P.3d 1107 · 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?

Segaline v. STATE, DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUS.

238 P.3d 1107 · 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?

Strode

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 4, 2025

to establish qualified immunity generally must often be shown by 18 matters outside the complaint.”); Chang v. … conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

City of Seattle v. McConahy

86 Wash. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 2, 1997

We also do not decide whether homeless residents could establish the requisite disparate impact to invoke the *562 protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clause because these appellants have not done so. … our Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane

134 Wash. 2d 947 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1998

As in Bateson claims of absolute immunity should be denied and defendants’ liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 established. … Municipalities enjoy no qualified immunity from suit. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S. Ct. 1398 , 63 L. Ed. 2d 673 (1980); Robinson v.

Entila v. Cook

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2017

RCW 51.08.013 then establishes employer immunity and defines "acting in the course of employment." … Although RCW 51.08.013 establishes benefit eligibility and employer immunity, it does not control third party immunity, which is the issue this case presents.

Estate of Jones v. State

15 P.3d 180 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 26, 2000

State , the court held that while parole officers have qualified personal immunity, that immunity does not run to the State, which remains liable for a parole officer's negligent supervision. [13] In Bishop v. … State, 111 Wash.2d 182, 193 , 759 P.2d 1188 (1988))). [9] Bishop, 137 Wash.2d at 524-26 , 973 P.2d 465 (discussing absolute and qualified immunity for parole officers). [10] Taggart v.

Ruiz v. State

154 Wash. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 8, 2010

The tree that caused the injury was clearly located within a designated riparian zone. … The application process here clearly established a zone within which Hancock was prevented from harvesting timber. That zone is not disputed by the parties.

Madison v. State

163 P.3d 757 · 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. … ¶ 65 Despite prior case law establishing a sound, historical, and relatively simple approach to application of our constitution's privileges and immunities clause, the majority errs in its analysis.

State v. Reis

183 Wash. 2d 197 · Washington Supreme Court · May 7, 2015

In this context, the amended MUCA clearly establishes a tiered system of protections for compliant, qualifying users of medical marijuana: RCW 69.51A-.040 and a series of affirmative defenses for qualifying patients failing … Instead, qualifying patients and designated providers are provided with an affirmative defense and RCW 69.51A-.040 establishes the elements for raising that defense.

Malone v. City of Seattle

24 Wash. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 1979

The Paramedic Civil Immunity Act clearly and unambiguously states that no liability shall be occasioned by the good faith rendition of "emergency lifesaving service" by a paramedic. … The plaintiff argues that the act's definition of a "physician's trained mobile intensive care paramedic" 3 qualifies, and thereby circumscribes, the situational meaning of *223 "emergency lifesaving service."

Floyd Scott, V. American Express National Bank

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 2, 2022

If a law firm’s primary purpose is the collection of consumer debts, it may qualify as a collection agency under the WCAA. Mandelas v. Gordon, 785 F. … All five elements must be established for a CPA claim to be successful. Keodalah v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 Wn.2d 339, 350, 449 P.3d 1040 (2019).

Saldivar v. Momah

145 Wash. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 24, 2008

Klingbeil is not qualified to opine on psychiatric conditions.” … Nor does the defense counsel’s use of the word “jury” establish “actual notice” of a jury demand.

Farnsworth v. Armstrong

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 6, 2023

Because he 10 failed to meet his burden, the Court granted qualified immunity for Nee. 11 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Farnsworth argues that Nee violated his clearly 12 established constitutional rights … established.”

Andersen v. King County

158 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2006

" and *994 whether respondents' claim qualifies. … But it is clearly not the same as equal protection.