Case law

Smoke v. City of Seattle

132 Wash. 2d 214 · Washington Supreme Court · May 22, 1997

On March 6, 1990, Plaintiffs sent a letter to the City disputing the Metro letter’s conclusions and claiming the rectifier did not qualify as a principal structure. … Although the City protests RCW 64.40 lacks an express waiver of sovereign immunity from postjudgment interest, by consenting to suit for damages from land use decisions the City impliedly waived immunity from the liabilities

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Ecology

50 P.3d 668 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 29, 2002

Moreover, qualifying the types of contracts excluded from the act reduces the number of contracts barred from review under the WAPA. … Ecology and the City contend that the IFA is clearly not a proprietary contract. They assert that "proprietary," in this context, refers to the doctrine of a government's sovereign immunity from citizen lawsuit.

Wynn v. Earin

181 P.3d 806 · 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.

Jenkins v. State

85 Wash. 2d 883 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1975

Third, RCW 4.96 and RCW 36.45.030 are not clearly inconsistent and repugnant to each other. … In reality, sovereign immunity has nothing to do with the ultimate classifications which conditions establish.

Smoke v. City of Seattle

937 P.2d 186 · Washington Supreme Court · May 22, 1997

On March 6, 1990, Plaintiffs sent a letter to the City disputing the Metro letter's conclusions and claiming the rectifier did not qualify as a principal structure. … Although the City protests RCW 64.40 lacks an express waiver of sovereign immunity from postjudgment interest, by consenting to suit for damages from land use decisions the City impliedly waived immunity from the liabilities

Bennett v. Hicks

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 23, 2022

The Court grants the present motion to address qualified immunity. 7 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless 8 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … That right has been clearly established 19 since the Supreme Court’s decision in Farmer v. Brennan in 1994 ….

In Re The Complex Litigation Div. Of Wa Ag

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 2, 2026

When this question is asked of the Archdiocese, the longstanding establishment in Western Washington of one of the world’s most ancient and most cultivated religions, it clearly qualifies. … of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution

City of Seattle v. Gibson

96 Wash. 425 · Washington Supreme Court · May 18, 1917

St. 75, where an ordinance prohibited cemeteries in the city and county of Los Angeles, and provided that no one could establish a cemetery without the permission of the county supervisors, it was held that the ordinance-was … Persons equally qualified are entitled to the same privileges under the law, and a statute or an ordinance is void which interferes with or abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens who are equally entitled to the

Hauber v. Yakima County

107 Wash. App. 437 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 24, 2001

The S&R dive on March 15, *445 1997 clearly qualified as a mission for the purposes of chapter 38.52 RCW. … Hauber contends she is not subject to the immunity of RCW 38.52.190 because that provision conflicts with her rights under RCW 38.52.080.

Anica v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

120 Wash. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 5, 2004

Next, Anica claims that despite the IIA, Wal-Mart does not enjoy immunity from her lawsuit. … against individuals on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. 47 Congress therefore incorporated in IRCA protections for “protected individuals.” 48 Anica would derive no benefit even if we were to recognize a clearly

Bellevue School District No. 405 v. Brazier Construction Co.

103 Wash. 2d 111 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1984

Clearly this would frustrate the policy of settling estates and distributing a decedent's property to designated heirs. … Clearly, the two statutes are neither inconsistent with, nor repugnant to, each other; one is, in fact, intended to modify the other.

In Re Sundance Corporation, Inc.

149 B.R. 641 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 13, 1993

Judicial immunity was an established, essential element of the judicial power of the sovereign when the United States Constitution was adopted, and the concept is inherent in our judicial branch of government. … CERCLA’s language does not clearly and unequivocally waive federal judicial immunity and, in the absence of specific language to this effect, this court declines to interpret the statute as creating a serious constitutional

State v. Entz

58 Wash. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 29, 1990

Acting knowingly or with knowledge also is established if a person acts intentionally. Knowledge or intent is not established if a person merely acts recklessly. … Instead we hold that since Entz concedes she cannot establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under the federal constitution, she cannot establish a violation of the privileges and immunities clause under the Washington

Coffel v. Clallam County

47 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 13, 1987

Second, the defendants argue that the deputies possess a qualified immunity, shielding them from liability if they acted reasonably and in good faith. Defendants rely on Guffey v. … State, 103 Wn.2d 144, 152 , 690 P.2d 1163 (1984), which established that an officer is immune in an action for false arrest if he acted reasonably in carrying out a statutory duty according to procedures dictated by statute

Bromm

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 14, 2026

entitlement 18 to qualified immunity because he did not produce the letter itself. … The Ninth Circuit has 4 noted that “the law regarding [claims implicating Pickering] will rarely, if ever, be 5 sufficiently ‘clearly established’ to preclude qualified immunity.” Id. at 847.

Estate of Kepl v. State

34 Wash. App. 5 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 1983

Kepi cites the court to numerous cases which address the scope of the qualified immunity available to executive officers for acts performed in the course of their official conduct. … Our disposition of the case does not require us to determine whether a qualified immunity existed here. 5 Paragraph 8 of the amended complaint reads: "Michael Jessup, James Blakeley, and Dr. John A.

J.S.K. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Lacey

6 Wash. App. 43 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1971

The evidence clearly established that lewd acts occurred at the Royal Sauna before the amendment of ordinance No. 86 and before 'and after the Royal Sauna received its last license. … It is blanket in nature and seeks to exclude female bartenders, no matter how individually qualified, from all licensed establishments, no matter how suitably conducted.

Busey v. Richland School District

151 F. Supp. 3d 1135 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 22, 2015

Qualified Immunity The individual Board members assert that, even if the Court finds Mr. Key’s interview was deficient for purposes of due process, they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … In the context of section 1983 claims, qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Hauber v. County of Yakima

27 P.3d 257 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 24, 2001

The S & R dive on March 15, 1997 clearly qualified as a mission for the purposes of chapter 38.52 RCW. … Hauber contends she is not subject to the immunity of RCW 38.52.190 because that provision conflicts with her rights under RCW 38.52.080.

Courtney v. Goltz

868 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 17, 2012

The Courtneys’ efforts to establish a competing ferry service have taken several forms. … With the history and purpose of the amendments thus established, the Court proceeded to consider whether the Louisiana statute violated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.