Case law

Dan Young, V. Todd S. Rayan

533 P.3d 123 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 24, 2023

As applied to witnesses, the privilege is sometimes referred to as witness immunity, and under it, “[a]s a general rule, witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from suit based on their testimony.” … Bender, however, discussed the difference between doctrines of absolute and qualified (and discretionary) immunity in the abstract, not as applied to any particular set of facts. 99 Wn.2d at 600.

Silas Mason, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

188 Wash. 98 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1936

claim of immunity was upheld because the instrumentalities taxed were all so intimately connected with the necessary functions of government as to fall within the established exemption. … In a dissenting opinion, Justice Bradley, after contending that the rule established in McCulloch v.

Florer v. Bales-Johnson

752 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 27, 2010

immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Florer’s constitutional claims.

Washington Public Employees Ass'n v. Personnel Resources Board

127 Wash. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 26, 2005

The Civil Service Law established a new State Personnel Board and brought most general government employees under the Board’s control. … Moreover, if we are to compare members of the designated class with persons outside the class, it should not matter whether all members of the designated class are treated alike because a class of one qualifies for equal

Collins v. King County

49 Wash. App. 264 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 8, 1987

The Anderson court upheld the district attorney's claim of immunity, stating as follows: While it is true that a prosecuting attorney acting in a matter which is clearly outside of the duties of his office is personally liable … Thus, responsibilities for the establishment and implementation of the VAU have been placed with the prosecuting attorney. Therefore, Kahaumia was carrying out a mandated function of the prosecuting attorney.

Clipse v. Gillis

20 Wash. App. 691 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 1978

Counsel has not called to our attention, nor do we find from our own examination of the record, any facts which would tend to establish the illegality of the warrants, or their illegal execution. … If these preliminary questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, then the challenged act, omission, or decision can, with a reasonable degree of assurance, be classified as a discretionary governmental

Hanson v. Ferguson

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 2025

immunity because Plaintiffs fail to show that any individual Defendant 7 violated a clearly established right. … A court “may begin the qualified immunity analysis by 14 considering whether there is a violation of clearly established law without determining whether a 15 constitutional violation occurred.” Krainski v.

Manor v. Nestle Food Co.

78 Wash. App. 5 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 30, 1995

Manor’s employer as a matter of law and, thus, immune from suit. The Manors contend the question is one of fact, not of law. … In the workers’ compensation claim, Nestle’s position was not adversarial while it is clearly an adversary in the present claim.

Turngren v. King County

104 Wash. 2d 293 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1985

The case further holds that whether the sheriff disclosed sufficient material facts to establish probable cause was an issue for the jury. … Accordingly, Bender's discussion of discretionary immunity has no effect on the Turngrens' § 1983 action.

Foley v. Department of Fisheries

119 Wash. 2d 783 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1992

landings until after the end of the qualifying period. … First, they argued RCW 75.30.210 violated the federal equal protection clause and the privileges and immunities clause contained in the Washington Constitution.

Colombo v. Washington Department of Natural Resources

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 2025

A court “may begin the qualified immunity analysis by 12 considering whether there is a violation of clearly established law without determining whether a 13 constitutional violation occurred.” Krainski v. … “To determine whether a constitutional right 15 has been clearly established for qualified immunity purposes,” the court “must survey the legal 16 landscape and examine those cases that are most like the instant case

In re Dependency of A.M.-S.

196 Wash. 2d 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 22, 2020

Nevertheless, “[t]he power of government to compel persons to testify in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence.” Id. … For example, the Washington Constitution clearly recognizes an individual’s right to privacy with no express limitation. CONST. art. I, § 7.

Donna Zink, et ux v. City of Mesa

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 30, 2024

However, we conclude that the right to video record a public meeting was not clearly established in 2003 and therefore Mayor Ross is entitled to qualified immunity. … it was clearly established in 2003.

West v. Mount Vernon Sand & Gravel, Inc.

56 Wash. 2d 752 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1960

Consequently, under the statute as above quoted, the defendant is clearly immune from civil liability if the plaintiff *754 was in fact’engaged in extrahazardous employment at the time of his injury. Denning v. … The rule establishing the requisite proof to support a conclusion of contributory negligence as a matter of law was set forth by this court in O’Brien v.

Avellaneda v. State

273 P.3d 477 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 27, 2012

The court held, "If these preliminary questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, then the challenged act, omission, or decision can, with a reasonable degree of assurance, be classified as a discretionary … In order for a decision to qualify as discretionary, the State must show that the decision was the outcome of a conscious balancing of risks and advantages. Taggart, 118 Wash.2d at 214-15 , 822 P.2d 243 .

Richmond v. Thompson

130 Wash. 2d 368 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1996

New York Times, however, established a qualified privilege under the First Amendment for statements concerning public officials. … I, § 5 did not grant absolute immunity. Wilson, 137 Wash. at 133 .

FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Edwards

464 F. Supp. 2d 1063 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 27, 2006

The defamation context clearly qualifies “all liability.” 2 Similarly, while the Dexter decision by the Washington Court of Appeals came after the Washington Supreme Court’s extension of the litigation privilege to contexts … Were we able lo invoke only clearly established state law, litigants seeking to protect their rights in federal courts by availing themselves of our diversity jurisdiction would face an inhospitable forum for claims not identical

State v. Toomey

38 Wash. App. 831 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 5, 1984

Immunity would have jeopardized his conviction, for if he were successful in obtaining a reversal, he could not be tried again. State v. Runions, 100 Wn.2d 52 , 665 P.2d 1358 (1983). … It is debatable whether Toomey's claim qualifies, but we nevertheless elect to consider it. 6 In Michael M. v.

Spokane Tribe of Indians v. State of Wash.

790 F. Supp. 1057 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 31, 1991

The State raises sovereign immunity, established by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, as a bar to this action. … It appears that sovereign immunity must be overcome by a source independent of 28 U.S.C. § 1362 in order for federal court jurisdiction to be established.

Lockner v. Pierce County

Washington Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2018

No. 94643-4 To qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was(1)open to members ofthe public(2)for recreational purposes and that(3)no fee was charged. … Pierce County, et al., No. 94643-4 affect immunity. Clearly, mixed public and other uses do not defeat immunity since the legislature amended RCW 4.24.210 to include land used for hydroelectric power plants.