Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,602 results
3.17s
115 Wash. 672 · Washington Supreme Court · May 23, 1921
“(c) Because it takes the property of one class of citizens without due process of law and grants immunities to one class of citizens and is unequal in its application on all classes of citizens, in contravention of Sec. … Such legislation is clearly within the police power of the state.
Cited 14 timesPublished85 Wash. 2d 17 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1975
Many of the provisions of that act were clearly inspired by the tragedies which gave rise to these cases. … State, supra at 834), and the qualified constitutional privilege given comment on matters of public interest ( Rosenbloom v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedClarke v. Shoreline School District No. 412
106 Wash. 2d 102 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1986
II On appeal to the Superior Court, the trial court entered a conclusion of law that the "clearly erroneous" standard of judicial review applied in determining whether the hearing officer's findings of fact established sufficient … Furthermore, Dean does not require the School District to create a position for Clarke for which he is not qualified, or to hire Clarke over a more qualified person.
Cited 83 timesPublishedGossett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington
948 P.2d 1264 · 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.
Cited 68 timesPublishedMaki v. Bremerton School District
District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2020
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 7 “Qualified immunity is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.’” 8 Conner v. … Defendants in a § 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity unless their 10 conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 11 person would have known. Pearson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 27, 2019
Borders’s conduct 2 violated a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, Mr. Walsh and Ms. 3 Borders are entitled to qualified immunity, and the Court grants them summary 4 judgment on Ms. … Borders received qualified immunity and because 20 Ms.
Cited 0 timesUnknown132 Wash. 2d 776 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1997
Seeley qualifies to participate in the research program. The hoard of pharmacy did not allow him to be a part of the program because at the time no funding existed. … Washington modeled its privileges and immunities clause after Oregon’s privileges and immunities clause, art.
Cited 95 timesPublishedHall v. Walgreens Boots All., Inc.
Washington Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2025
As amended, the current exemptions highlight that broader immunity is granted to the more highly regulated industries, such as the federal power commission, and less immunity is granted to regulatory boards or officers … Thus, it qualified its previous use of the word “permitted” with the term “specifically” only as to entities established under Title 18 RCW. 4 This indicates an intent that businesses and professions regulated by Title
Cited 0 timesPublished70 Wash. App. 827 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 5, 1993
This was an obvious effort to avoid the immunity bar, not well grounded in facts, not well grounded in the existing law of sovereign immunity, 9 and without further inquiry. … Gomez and briefly detained him; he was clearly authorized to do so. See State v. Schmuck, 121 Wn.2d 373 , 850 P.2d 1332 (1993) and the federal cases cited therein.
Cited 19 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 30, 2022
immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “ ‘does 21 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As such, there is at least some case law to suggest that 11 Farnsworth could overcome a qualified immunity defense.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRoger Leishman v. Ogden, Murphy & Wallace
Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 3, 2019
A person prevailing upon the defense provided for in this section is entitled to recover expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in establishing the defense and in addition shall receive statutory … Justice Madsen, however, was not convinced that a “person’s” free speech rights “is dispositive of the question whether a government agency is a ‘person’ qualifying for RCW 4.24.510’s immunity from civil liability.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 24, 2024
Qualified Immunity 14 Finally, Defendant briefly raises the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. (Dkt. No. 15 101 at 4.) … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless a plaintiff 16 pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 17 ‘clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownJ.S. v. Vill. Voice Media Holdings, LLC
Washington Supreme Court · Sep 3, 2015
The context of subsection 230(c)(1) also compels the conclusion that it does not establish an immunity. We must consider the context of the statute in discerning its meaning. Dep't of Ecology v. … Amazon. com, Inc., 456 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006) ("The majority of federal circuits have interpreted the CDA to establish broad 'federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 7, 2023
Because Defendants still enjoy qualified immunity, Plaintiff not 18 only needs to show how they violated his rights, but that those rights are of a “clearly established 19 statutory or constitutional [magnitude] of which … And none of 2 Plaintiff’s allegations, at least on the surface, suggest that the subordinate violated a clearly 3 established right (nor does Plaintiff provide citation suggesting that it does). See Foster v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownOberg v. Department of Natural Resources
114 Wash. 2d 278 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1990
It is liable for its established negligence unless the public duty doctrine precludes liability. … because of immunity.
Cited 13 timesPublished20 Wash. 2d 416 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1944
is duly appointed and qualified. … To do so would divest the statute of the precautions, clearly apparent from a reading of the statute, to remove the hospital system from politics.
Cited 0 timesPublished171 Wash. 2d 587 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 2011
Clearly, if no construction was occurring on the campus, the immunity provisions of RCW 51.24.035 would not be at issue. CH2M’s contract with the city contemplated at least two main activities. … The immunity statute at issue addresses both historical bases for liability; it protects design professionals from general liability for work site safety (unless assumed by contract) but clearly recognizes common law liability
Cited 49 timesPublishedEsparza v. Skyreach Equipment, Inc.
103 Wash. App. 916 · 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.
Cited 28 timesPublishedStanding v. Department of Labor & Industries
92 Wash. 2d 463 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1979
RCW 7.68.130 clearly satisfies the first requirement in that it reduces the benefits of all persons who receive funds from public or private insurance sources. Mrs. … Second, although the legislature intended to assist and compensate victims of crime, it clearly evidenced a desire to insure only a basic level of recompense.
Cited 23 timesPublishedHall v. Walgreens Boots All., Inc.
Washington Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2025
As amended, the current exemptions highlight that broader immunity is granted to the more highly regulated industries, such as the federal power commission, and less immunity is granted to regulatory boards or officers … Thus, it qualified its previous use of the word “permitted” with the term “specifically” only as to entities established under Title 18 RCW. 4 This indicates an intent that businesses and professions regulated by Title
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna