Case law

Washington State Republican Party v. Public Disclosure Commission

141 Wash. 2d 245 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2000

Under this doctrine, public employees performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Ed. 2d 818 (1999) (finding *287 qualified immunity under § 1988 for state officials).

Jones v. Robert E. Bayley Construction Co.

36 Wash. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 5, 1984

Public policy requires that an intent to waive the employer's immunity be clearly expressed. Glass v. Stahl Specialty Co., 97 Wn.2d 880, 886 , 652 P.2d 948 (1982); Calkins v. Lorain Div. of Koehring Co., 26 Wn. … "The agreement need only clearly express an intent to provide for indemnification." Noia v. Ferrell-Penning, Inc., supra. Clause L clearly expresses an intent to provide for indemnification.

Coburn v. Seda

101 Wash. 2d 270 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1984

The court found the statute granted immunity from discovery to medical staff committee records, stating: Literally, section 1157 establishes an immunity from discovery but not an evidentiary privilege in the sense that medical … A sponsor of the bill replied, "'[T]he answer to that question is clearly "no."'" House Journal, 42d Legislature (1971), at 877.

J & B Development Co. v. King County

100 Wash. 2d 299 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1983

The concept of "sovereign immunity," on the other hand, provides generally that despite the existence of apparent duty a municipal corporation, in the exercise of governmental functions, is immune from tort liability. … The concept of "sovereign immunity," while recognizing the existence of a tort, denies all liability within the limits of the immunity. W. Prosser, *304 supra.

Ballou v. McElvain

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 12, 2019

Qualified Immunity 4 Defendants argue that, “at a minimum,” McElvain is entitled to qualified immunity 5 because it was not clearly established that Ballou’s “private … They also argue that McElvain is entitled to qualified immunity 8 because it is not clearly established that the Equal Protection Clause extends to retaliation claims. 9 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government

Ooh! Media LLC v. Spokane Transit Authority

District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 22, 2020

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long 5 as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 6 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even so, the Court finds that Defendant Meyer is 1 entitled to qualified immunity because the First Amendment right asserted by 2 Defendants was not clearly established.

Cook v. State

83 Wash. 2d 599 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1974

I believe the text of RCW 4.92.090 abolishing governmental immunity and the case law that has interpreted it, clearly establish that our state has waived its immunity from tort liability. … We declined to adopt this "technical construction" of section .090 which clearly stated the legislative intent to waive its tort immunity.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. City of Seattle

274 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 4, 2017

The Court finds that the Chamber has raised serious questions regarding both prongs of the immunity analysis. B. … of its qualifying drivers.

Miller v. Prentice

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2021

The officer was not entitled to qualified 6 immunity for the bystander’s excessive use of force claim because it was clearly 7 established that a taser in dart mode constituted more than trivial force. … Because the law is not clearly 4 established that Prentice used excessive force in violation of Miller’s Fourth Amendment 5 rights, Prentice is entitled to qualified immunity.

Columbia Steel Co. v. State

34 Wash. 2d 700 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1949

Plaintiff has qualified, under the laws of the state of Washington, to carry on that portion of its business which consists of the sale of iron and steel products in this state. … All of the facts relied upon by appellant in this connection were clearly set forth in the pleadings which were before us on the previous appeal, and that these facts were understood by the court, and considered, clearly

Flying T Ranch, Inc., V. Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 3, 2024

In the absence of comprehensive legislation by Congress regulating tribal sovereign immunity, the United States Supreme Court has upheld tribal sovereign immunity for claims for which the FSIA clearly waived foreign nations … It is clearly necessary that the territorial sovereign reserve the authority to determine title disputes notwithstanding a foreign putative owner’s claims of immunity, because the operation of the local action rule would

Thomas v. Lehman

158 P.3d 86 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 15, 2007

Clearly, the Legislature did not intend inmates to have unfettered, immediate access to their wages during their incarceration. C. … Neither absolute nor qualified immunity extends to § 1983 suits for declaratory relief such as this one. See, e.g., Orellana v.

Babcock v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 17 OF CLALLAM CTY.

57 Wash. 2d 578 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1961

All of the elements established by the rules must be present before a legislative enactment can be found to have been impliedly repealed by a subsequent act. … Among these rules are (1) that the present legislation must evidently be intended to supersede the prior legislation on the subject, and (2) that both acts will be allowed to stand unless *581 they are clearly inconsistent

State v. Rhone

229 P.3d 752 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2010

A single invidiously discriminatory governmental act' is not `immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions.'" … under Batson was clearly erroneous.

Mahoney v. Holder

62 F. Supp. 3d 1215 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2014

“The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justi *1220 fication for such immunity.” Antoine v. … “To qualify for absolute immunity, the function performed must be a judicial act with ‘a sufficiently close nexus to the adjudicative process.’

Hordon v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 27, 2020

“Law is 21 ‘clearly established’ for the purposes of qualified immunity if every reasonable official would 22 have understood that what he is doing violates the right at issue.” Wilk v. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 2 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also addresses the issue of qualified immunity in these 3 ways: at Amended Complaint (Dkt. 20, ¶ 4.31, at 11), he alleges

State v. Rhone

168 Wash. 2d 645 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2010

Ed. 2d 196 (2005). ¶26 In my view, the trial court’s consideration of systematic discrimination in its analysis of whether Rhone established a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson was clearly erroneous. … Here, the trial court did not appear to recognize that fact and, consequently, its ruling on Rhone’s Batson challenge was clearly erroneous, having been based on a misinterpretation of the requirements to establish a prima

Sayan v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

43 Wash. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 26, 1986

He urges on us an argument accepted by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, that the words "legally entitled to recover" in that state's UMC statute "mean simply that the plaintiff must be able to establish fault on the part of … Clearly, the phrase "legally entitled to recover", without more, conjures up two equally reasonable concepts.

Reed v. Hammond

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 31, 2022

As Reed accurately points out, they do not substantively address the “second 13 prong” of the qualified immunity test: whether a reasonable official would have known 14 that their conduct violated a clearly established … established, thus entitling Defendants to qualified immunity even if they 15 violated Reed’s constitutional rights.

Steven Jewels v. City Of Bellingham

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2014

Recreational use immunity is an affirmative defense that must be established by the landowner. Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., Wn.2d , 317 P.3d 987, 991 (2014). … The statute was clearly intended to modify the common law. Van Pinter, 121 Wn.2d at 41-42; Pavis, 144 Wn.2d at 615-16; Camicia, 317 P.3d at 992.