Case law

McKasson v. State

55 Wash. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 31, 1989

It does not limit Baerlein or establish a duty running from the Securities Division to the appellants. We find that none of the cases cited by appellants are persuasive in establishing a duty in this case. … The rule of nonli-ability and the reasons therefor are clearly enunciated in the following cases: McDonald v.

Braam v. State

150 Wash. 2d 689 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2003

immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. … Whether and when qualified immunity is available to state actors triggers a consideration of issues not before us.

Denton v. Rainer

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2023

immunity because those rights were not clearly established. … Id. 21 Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Denton’s 22 Due Process claim because it is not clearly established that DOC’s review process for 1 Max custody inmates violates the

United States v. Washington

20 F. Supp. 3d 986 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 31, 2013

Gibbs also failed to mention Suquamish use of Bainbridge island, although this is clearly established by other sources. … Furthermore, the Tribes have failed to establish that their waiver of sovereign immunity was, in fact, involuntary.

Campbell v. State

12 Wash. 2d 459 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1942

Swayze, its director of licenses, plaintiff alleged that he is duly licensed and qualified to practice dentistry in the state of Washington, owning and operating, under his own name of *461 “Dr. J. C. … The opinion clearly states the reasons for the conclusion reached by the court, and the facts differ so greatly from those here presented that the case is not in point.

Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Inc. v. Washington State Tax Commission

72 Wash. 2d 422 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1967

Respondent’s initial application and continued claim of the pertinent deduction, under the statute as worded by the 1945 legislative amendment, clearly called for and authorized a factual determination and exercise of judgment … Both a tax “exemption,” which does not amount to total immunity, and a “deduction” presuppose a taxable status and must be claimed by the taxpayer if he is to benefit from either.

Gephart v. Stout

11 Wash. 2d 184 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1941

contribute to the fund is immune. … While the foregoing cases are not directly in point, they do clearly establish two essential requirements which an employer must meet to entitle him to immunity from suit by a workman not in his employ: (1) The employer must

GROUP HEALTH CO-OP. OF PUGET SOUND, INC. v. State Tax Comm'n

72 Wash. 2d 422 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1967

Respondent's initial application and continued claim of the pertinent deduction, under the statute as worded by the 1945 legislative amendment, clearly called for and authorized a factual determination and exercise of judgment … Both a tax "exemption," which does not amount to total immunity, and a "deduction" presuppose a taxable status and must be claimed by the taxpayer if he is to benefit from either.

Barr v. Day

124 Wash. 2d 318 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1994

In the present case, the client clearly expressed her loss of confidence and desire to terminate the confidential relationship with Attorney Day almost a year before the settlement. … While we agree Stocker is immune, we believe his immunity is better conceived as a branch of quasi-judicial immunity rather than witness immunity.

Paulson v. County of Pierce

99 Wash. 2d 645 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 1983

the same immunity. … We have examined the evidence relied upon by plaintiffs to establish the joint venture and agree with the position of the trial court that Recreation Properties had no control over the diking enterprise of Pierce County.

Partridge v. City of Seattle

49 Wash. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 31, 1987

Clearly, the statute, as amended, includes public landowners and occupiers within the recreational use immunity from liability. McCarver , at 376. … Construing the statute to include constructive knowledge would be contrary to the clearly expressed purpose of RCW 4.24 limiting the liability of landowners.

Qualey v. Pierce County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 27, 2025

The district court denied qualified immunity. … , the qualified immunity inquiry focuses on whether the right 16 at issue was clearly established.

Roger 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.”

Grader v. City of Lynnwood

53 Wash. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 13, 1989

The discriminatory purpose must be clearly shown since such a purpose cannot be presumed. Snowden; Stastny v. Board of Trustees, 32 Wn. … This, in itself, is not sufficient to establish a due process claim.

Cummins v. Lewis County

133 P.3d 458 · Washington Supreme Court · May 4, 2006

Properly, the public duty doctrine is neither a court created general grant of immunity nor a set of specific exceptions to some other existing immunity. … While the court did not use the term "public duty doctrine," it clearly articulated its underlying principles.

Saade v. State of Washington Department of Health

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 30, 2019

immunity doctrine, “[a] 16 constitutional right is clearly established if every reasonable official would have 17 understood that what he is doing violates that right.” … Jones is also insufficient to create 2 a clearly established right that was violated.3 3 Defendant Fenimore is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on both counts. 4 The Court GRANTS

Omar Abdul Alim v. City Of Seattle

14 Wash. App. 2d 838 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 19, 2020

Their interest as individual gun owners in keeping unsecured firearms in their homes is clearly within the zone of interests regulated by the ordinance. The City does not contend otherwise. … App. 92, 108, 38 P.3d 1040 (2002), when the legal issue is whether an ordinance violates the constitution (or here a state statute), the issue is one a court is particularly qualified to decide.

Michaels v. CH2M Hill, Inc.

257 P.3d 532 · 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

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR v. City of Seattle

273 P.3d 498 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 2, 2012

The taxpayer has made a claim that some of their sales are not subject to the Seattle B & O tax because they qualify for an import exemption or deduction. … As soon as the journey began, tax immunity attached." Wash.

Boyd v. Overman

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 16, 2024

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the claims of deliberate 14 indifference under either the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First 15 Amendment claim.7 It was not clearly established in 2019 … Moreover, Defendants are entitled to Eleventh 19 Amendment immunity and qualified immunity.