Case law

Nelson v. Thurston County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 1, 2020

does not 13 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 14 have known.” … A two-part test resolves claims of 15 qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have shown facts that “make out a 16 violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at issue was ‘clearly

Department of Revenue v. Nord Northwest Corp.

164 Wash. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 17, 2011

Under Washington law, a real property title transfer does not always establish property ownership. … While the parties clearly intended Nord to *234 control the development project and sought tax advantages, the record indicates they intended the LLCs, as separate entities, to own the properties. ¶40 Based on the reasons

Riddoch v. State

68 Wash. 329 · Washington Supreme Court · May 1, 1912

Municipal corporations enjoy their immunity from liability for torts only in so far as they partake of the state’s immunity, and only in the exercise of those governmental powers and duties imposed upon them as representing … This fact is clearly pointed out and the decision limited to that single question by the subsequent case of Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151 .

State v. Reis

Washington Supreme Court · May 7, 2015

In this context, the amended MUCA clearly establishes a tiered 10 State v. … Instead, qualifying patients and designated providers are provided with an affirmative defense and RCW 69.51A.040 establishes the elements for raising that defense.

Githinji v. Olympia Police Department

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 20, 2024

Qualified Immunity 13 Defendants move for qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. … The qualified immunity analysis consists of two 22 prongs: (1) whether the facts the plaintiff alleges make out a violation of a constitutional right; 23 and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

Norg v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2023

These limitations clearly distinguish Cummins from the case presented here. … Moreover, an examination of the Norgs’ claim clearly shows that they do not rely on the E911 statute.

Lukich v. Department of Labor & Industries

176 Wash. 221 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1934

1613, and article 1 thereof reads as follows: “There shall be reciprocally full and entire liberty of commerce and navigation between the citizens and subjects of the two high contracting powers, who shall be at liberty to establish … True, the word “industry” *231 is used, but in tbe context it clearly appears that this word was employed in connection with commerce and not with labor.

Thompson v. Central Valley School District No 365

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 24, 2022

Qualified Immunity 15 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so 16 long as their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory … Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12 (quotation omitted). 1 In making the qualified immunity determination, courts are not to define 2 clearly established law at a high level of generality. Id.

Michael Lang, Res/cross-app.. V. Platinum Nine Holdings, Llc, Apps/cross-res.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 28, 2025

In contrast here, RCW 18.71.210 provides qualified immunity only to those “rendering emergency medical service.” It does not grant immunity for non- emergency services. … Use of Gurney Restraints NWA next claims that EMTs’ use of a gurney and gurney restraints is clearly an “emergency medical procedure” to which immunity applies.

Shinaberger ex rel. Campbell v. LaPine

109 Wash. App. 304 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 26, 2001

Second, the words “reasonably necessary’ qualify RCW *309 10.14.030 (4)(c). … The statute’s plain language does not support the District’s claim of per se immunity in this case.

Woodyer v. United States

334 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2004

Petty Officers Wallsinger and Doris were both experienced and capable Coast Guard Coxswains, fully qualified to command their respective vessels. … The PVA provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity from suit for certain maritime claims.

Johnson v. Kariko

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 2, 2022

They argue that Johnson failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the 13 constitutional violations he claims are clearly established. 14 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials … cites a case clearly establishing that the conduct at issue here was 11 unconstitutional. 12 The Court agrees that each defendant is entitled to qualified

State v. Fabbri

98 Wash. 207 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1917

It is argued in appellant’s behalf that the words “with intent to sell,” etc., re *209 fer to and qualify the words “manufacture, . . . any intoxicating liquor,” as well as the words “keep any intoxicating liquor.” … Those rights are best secured, in our government, by the observance, upon the part of all, of such regulations as are established by competent authority to promote the common good.

Miller v. City of Port Angeles

38 Wash. App. 904 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 19, 1984

A need for the improvements was clearly demonstrated, directly related to the traffic which would be generated by the development. The City acted reasonably to meet that need. … We believe that is what the City intended, but condition l.b does not clearly say so. Paragraph 6 provided: *912 vi.

Gossett v. Farmers Insurance

133 Wash. 2d 954 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1997

They clearly did not purchase the property. Instead, they assigned "all interest” in their purchase and sale agreement to Trusty Deed. CP at 86. … Corporations are clearly entitled to the same privileges and immunities as individual persons, but this does not explain why any enhanced protection should be considered under the state constitution.

City of Seattle v. Cottin

144 Wash. 572 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1927

remove such person to such hospital, *574 sanitarium, separate house, or such place as has been designated by the commissioner of health, or as may be by law or ordinance provided therefor, it shall be his duty to forthwith establish … Appellant contends that, having been legally qualified to practice a certain system of healing, under cer *576 tain statutes relating thereto, he is entitled to be included within the class known as physicians and within

Miotke v. City of Spokane

101 Wash. 2d 307 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1984

Spokane's sewer system was established in 1890, and has been expanded significantly since that time. … Plaintiffs clearly satisfy all three criteria identified in PUD 1 v.

Brame v. St. Regis Paper Co.

97 Wash. 2d 748 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1982

It contained no clear expression that General Mechanical waived its immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act. RCW Title 51. b. … This clearly does not rise above the level of mere unsupported allegations. CR 56(e). LaPlante v. State, 85 Wn.2d 154, 158 , 531 P.2d 299 (1975).

Dan Young, V. Todd S. Rayan

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 … 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.

Vergeson v. Kitsap County

145 Wash. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 2008

No matter how reasonable, Vergeson’s unspoken expectation that her quashed warrant would be removed from the databases does not qualify as an express assurance for purposes of establishing this special relationship exception … Although Vergeson does not argue that she established privity with the County through the judge issuing the warrant-quashing order, we note that a judge’s acts, performed within his or her employment capacity, are immune