Case law

Winkenwerder v. City of Yakima

52 Wash. 2d 617 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1958

The burden rests upon the party who challenges an ordinance to establish clearly its invalidity; Ibid. .It is-, well to keep in mind the words of Justice Holmes in Noble State Bank v. Haskell (1910), 219 U. … The cases cited and relied on by respondent clearly involve unreasonable encroachment.

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.

Martin v. Dep't of Corrections

Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 2022

Sovereign immunity, established under Washington’s constitution in article II, section 26, recognized there was no right to sue the State at common law. … Analyzing a different statute—former RCW 7.70.100 (2006), which established a 90-day notice period for medical malpractice claims—McDevitt’s lead opinion held that sovereign immunity allowed the legislature

Snell v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2023

And even 16 if Plaintiff were correct that she spoke on a matter of public concern, qualified immunity would 17 preclude her § 1983 claims. 18 As the Court explained … established’ to preclude qualified immunity under Harlow 22 and its progeny.”

Miller v. Sawant

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 21, 2022

right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged 13 conduct.’” … qualified immunity.

McAvoy v. Weber

198 Wash. 370 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1939

The right to garnish exists only when clearly sanctioned by the statutory law. 28 C. J. 25, § 13. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 680 [P. … The authorities are uniform in establishing the law to be that such a corporation is a private corporation.”

McDowell v. AUSTIN COMPANY

39 Wash. App. 443 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 1985

We hold that an indemnity clause of this type is enforceable only if it clearly and specifically contains a waiver of the immunity of the workers' compensation act, either by *448 so stating or by specifically stating that … Inclusion of that language clearly shows an intent to waive the immunity of the Industrial Insurance Act.

Adamson v. Pierce County

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 25, 2022

Defendants Pastor and Bomkamp Allegedly Violated Clearly Established Rights 7 Having determined that Plaintiffs plead a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim, 8 we move to the second prog of the qualified immunity … Further, “[t]he right to 11 speak freely without retaliation has long been clearly established for the purposes of qualified 12 immunity.” Aydelotte v. Town of Skykomish, 2020 WL 4347261, at *5 (W.D. Wash.

Oda v. State

44 P.3d 8 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 8, 2002

By contrast, the waiver of sovereign immunity in tort in RCW 4.92.090 is broad. … Numerous qualified Black and Spanish-surnamed applicants who sought line driving jobs at the company over the years "either had their requests ignored, were given false or misleading information about requirements, opportunities

Atkerson v. Dep't of Child., Youth, & Fams.

Washington Supreme Court · Feb 6, 2025

But Desmet concerned the immunity embodied in RCW 4.24.595(2), which is built around witness immunity and the limited immunity given to those who implement court orders. 200 Wn.2d at 148. … Contrary to the majority’s reading, tying immunity to this specific point in the investigative process established a higher standard of liability only in those instances where swift action is necessary to protect a child

Reed v. Hammond

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2020

immunity from Reed’s claims as alleged as a matter of clearly 17 established law. … Dkt. 40. 7 Defendants argued that Reed had failed to establish the violation of a constitutional right 8 and, even if he did establish that violation, Defendants were entitled to qualified 9 immunity because the law

Jenkins v. Department of Social & Health Services

160 Wash. 2d 287 · Washington Supreme Court · May 3, 2007

If the recipient lives with a caregiver, a second formula is applied to reduce the number of care hours for which the recipient qualifies. … We have held this statute does not apply to public agencies absent a clear waiver of sovereign immunity.

LaPlante v. State

85 Wash. 2d 154 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1975

The trial court granted the motion, holding that the facts did not establish a duty owed to appellants by the State and holding further that the acts of the State’s employees *158 were discretionary, thereby immunizing the … It does not, in and of itself, establish a right to recover. The basic elements of an alleged tort must still be established before the State is deemed liable. See Evangelical United Brethren Church v.

Valdez-Zontek v. Eastmont School District

154 Wash. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 12, 2010

facie case of defamation, the defendant can assert either an absolute or a qualified privilege to defend against liability for defamatory statements. … RCW 4.24.510 Immunity ¶48 The issue is whether the District is immune from liability under RCW 4.24.510 for Ms. Jagla’s statement to the auditor (Mr. Renick) that Ms. Valdez-Zontek was having an affair with Mr.

Davis v. Brown

112 Wash. 121 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1920

, or who, qualifying, shall thereafter resign or die. … In case any one or more of them shall not qualify, or, if after qualifying, shall die or resign, those qualifying or surviving, as the case may be, shall have all the powers which all of them would have had if all had qualified

City of Seattle v. Loutsis Investment Co.

16 Wash. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 30, 1976

authorizes the grant of federal matching funds for qualified local renewal projects. … These powers must be first clearly delegated by the people and then exercised with prudence, reason, and care.

Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State

152 Wash. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 10, 2009

WSDOT countered that *203 the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred interest on the award of relocation benefits. … WSDOT denied reimbursement for the substitute equipment because it determined that the equipment at issue was real property and therefore did not qualify for relocation assistance.

Matheson v. Kinnear

393 F. Supp. 1025 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 28, 1975

Clearly the statutory pattern provides for notice and judicial review of the questions pertaining to the legality of the seizure and sale of the cigarettes as contraband. … Congress itself felt it necessary to address the immunity question and to provide tax immunity to the extent it deemed desireable [sic].

Alsager v. Board of Osteopathic Medicine & Surgery

945 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 8, 2013

There are exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Pittman , at 1071. … A proceeding must be judicial in nature to qualify as an ongoing state proceeding for purposes of Younger. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v.

Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management (Colorado), LLC

152 Wash. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 15, 2009

assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such *398 charges by proof of his or her compliance with the requirements provided in this chapter … Thus, Roe cannot establish the clarity element necessary to support her wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim and it fails. ¶26 MUMA provides qualifying medical users only a defense to criminal prosecution