Case law

Manor v. Nestle Food Co.

932 P.2d 628 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1997

If Manor had been covered under the state fund he clearly would not be barred from a third party action as a matter of law. … There is no analogous provision in the IIA establishing legislative intent that a corporate parent is immune from a third party suit merely because its affiliated companies provide coverage through self-insurance.

United States v. Washington

909 F. Supp. 787 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 18, 1995

Lewis recognized that: “Those qualified to act as commissioners in a particular area are likely to have had prior association with those qualified as expert witnesses from that area.” … The Shi.Ay presumption “holds that any pre statehood grant of property does not include tidelands unless the grant clearly indicated that tidelands were included.” Washington, 873 F.Supp at 1443.

State v. Shea

78 Wash. 342 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1914

None of this evidence was controverted, and we think it clearly tended to establish the fact that the prosecuting witness paid this money on a promise of protection to be secured through the appellant’s relations with the … This evidence falls within the well established exception to the rule excluding evidence as to other criminal acts.

Zarbell v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

52 Wash. 2d 549 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1958

(Italics ours.) *552 ’ In the cáse at bár, it -is quite obvious that the respondent, in its motion, asserted the immunity provided by Congress in 12 U. S. C. … Clearly, the defendant therein, by asking for affirmative relief after his motion to dismiss was denied, waived his special appearance and any right to a dismissal for lack of proper service of summons.

Momah v. Bharti

144 Wash. App. 731 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 28, 2008

Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of defamation, the defendant can raise either an absolute or qualified privilege to defend against liability for defamatory statements. See Bender v. … "An absolute privilege or immunity is said to absolve the defendant of all liability for defamatory statements . . .

Liberty Bank of Seattle, Inc. v. Henderson

75 Wash. App. 546 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 29, 1994

These statements appear to be relatively innocuous and may well not be defamatory, or may be protected by an absolute or qualified privilege. … In the context of this case, they had a qualified privilege to publish statements, even if defamatory, as long as they were acting in the good faith performance of their official duties. See RCW 43.19.030.

Buck v. Case

24 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 9, 1938

impairs the obligation of contract, destroys the rights of complainants in their copyrighted works, nullifies valid contracts theretofore entered into, interferes with the Federal judicial power, destroys the privileges and immunities … to have knowledge concerning the extent of their ownership, there can be no presumption that they are qualified to express an opinion concerning the cost of complying with the requirements of Section 4 of the Act, nor would

Peterson v. City of Yakima

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

to 6 qualified immunity. … “Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly 12 established constitutional right—when the officer should have known he was 13 violating the Constitution—does he forfeit qualified immunity.”

Hickman

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 29, 2026

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808 (2009). 4 “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly 5 established constitutional right.” Id. at 232. Mr. … ECF No. 1 at 6. 20 Having failed to plead the violation of a clearly established right, Officers Dietrich 1 and Vargas are entitled to immunity on Mr.

State v. Johnson

77 Wash. 2d 423 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1969

They have dismissed the cases, but I want you to understand clearly in deciding whether you wish to waive, your privilege against self incrimination that under the law they cannot grant you immunity, *432 neither can the … Before he took the stand, the court clearly advised him that neither the prosecuting attorney nor the court had the legal power to grant him immunity from prosecution, and that the state was not barred from prosecuting him

Esparza v. Skyreach Equipment, Inc.

15 P.3d 188 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 26, 2000

The court then prohibited Skyreach from arguing that JLG Industries, Inc., was a nonparty entity to which the jury could allocate fault because the evidence did "not establish that the machine was defective either in design … each other and serve the same purpose—prompt payment of benefits to the injured worker and immunity from allocation of fault to the employer.

Oda v. State

111 Wash. App. 79 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 8, 2002

By contrast, the waiver of sovereign immunity in tort in RCW 4.92.090 is broad. … Thus, our Supreme Court has said that an individual plaintiff can support a disparate treatment case with statistics, but cannot establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment with statistics.

Choi v. City of Lakewood

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 4, 2022

Officer Butts also asserts 14 qualified immunity. 15 2. Clearly Established? … 16 For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when it is sufficiently 17 clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that 18 right.”

Martin v. Fernandez

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 7, 2023

Qualified Immunity 2 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless 3 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly 1 established constitutional right – when the officer should have known he was 2 violating the Constitution – does he forfeit qualified immunity.”

State Ex Rel. Raines v. City of Seattle

134 Wash. 360 · Washington Supreme Court · May 8, 1925

By the provisions of § 6 of the amendments, these places were to be filled from the qualified civil service. … Clearly, under that provision of § 10, of art. XI, of the constitution, the state delegated to cities such as Seattle plenary power to adopt a local constitution or charter for its local government.

Mills v. Zeichner

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 17, 2024

Qualified immunity “protects government officials 10 from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory 11 or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Mills was allegedly deprived was 7 not so “clearly established” as to defeat qualified immunity. Indeed, Mr.

US West Communications, Inc. v. TCG SEATTLE

971 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 24, 1997

Drawing on principles of sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court has construed the Amendment “to establish that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens … “A state will be deemed to have waived its sovereign immunity when (1) the state expressly consents to suit; (2) a state statute or constitution so provides; or (3) Congress clearly intended to condition the state’s participation

Joyce v. Pierce County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 30, 2021

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 2 Defendants in a § 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for civil 3 liability if their conduct does not violate clearly … In analyzing the clearly 8 established prong of qualified immunity, the court emphasized that an officer “is not entitled to 9 qualified immunity based on his claimed fear for the safety of others . . .

Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders Ltd. Partnership

134 Wash. 2d 673 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1998

This condition also suggests an established farm may not be able to institute a new or radically expanded “activity” and maintain nuisance immunity, because the language of the statute focuses on agricultural activity that … has been established prior to the urban encroachment.

Avnet, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

187 Wash. App. 427 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 28, 2015

The Court soundly rejected this immunity in Complete Auto Transit, expressly overruling precedents to the contrary. 430 U.S. at *446 288-89 . … Avnet further asserts that delivery by common carrier into the taxing state does not qualify as in-state activity for purposes of substantial nexus.