Case law

McDonald v. Hogness

92 Wash. 2d 431 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1979

McDonald states that the U.W. medical school's practice is to admit all qualified minority persons because of race, but not all qualified nonminority individuals. … That provision concludes that "such matters need not be established by rule adopted under this chapter unless otherwise required by law." 12 See Alevy v.

Alem v. Diaz

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2022

Similarly, courts may dismiss based on qualified immunity under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) 4 “if it is clear from the complaint that the plaintiff can present no evidence that could overcome a 5 defense of qualified immunity … First, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to demonstrate how the 16 conduct at issue violated clearly established law—a requirement to defeat a police officer’s 17 qualified immunity. See Wood v.

Scott Iceberg v. Deborah Tigerson

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 12, 2026

Therefore, her email did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and she was entitled to qualified immunity. … FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM Iceberg argues that Tigerson’s March 27 email violated his clearly established First Amendment rights.

Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores

94 P.3d 961 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 13, 2004

EFFECT OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE ON AWARD OF INTEREST ON JUDGMENT The City also contends that its sovereign immunity bars the trial court's imposition of pre- and post-judgment interest. *973 The general rule is that … They are only sovereign and only immune in so far as they represent the state.

State v. Ingels

4 Wash. 2d 676 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1940

A person may achieve immunity by testifying before a grand jury concerning offenses for which he might otherwise be tried, while at the same time such immunity does not extend to perjury committed in testifying before the … The record clearly indicates that Smith was an unwilling witness.

In Re McHugh's Estate

165 Wash. 123 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1931

Barbara McHugh qualified as executrix and, as required by the statute (Rem. Comp. Stat., § 1477), she caused to be published a notice of her appointment as executrix and a notice to creditors to file their claims. … Whatever her purpose, the executrix by her notice and order clearly allowed the respondent's claim as a valid claim against the separate property of the decedent. The order appealed from is affirmed.

St Marie v. Jefferson County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 25, 2023

was ‘clearly established at the time of 16 the violation.’” … proceeding, 19 Macintyre is entitled to qualified immunity. 20 Even assuming the absence of qualified immunity, limiting communications between a 21 prosecutor and a defense attorney

American Network, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission

113 Wash. 2d 59 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1989

WAC 480-120-057(1) provides as follows: (1) Establishment of credit—interexchange telecommunications company. … or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.

Barnes v. Byrd

511 F. Supp. 693 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 15, 1981

All Defendants have moved for summary judgment of dismissal with the DSHS Defendants asserting their entitlement to qualified good faith immunity in addition to the general defense of the lawfulness of their actions. … To obtain a protectible right, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.” Id., 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2709 .

State Ex Rel. Schwab v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

80 Wash. 2d 266 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1972

The ultimate constitutional power clearly lies within the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This point is conceded in the brief of the respondent bar association. … We are not concerned in this case with the illegal delegation of powers to this state agency as I see it, nor with questions of equal protection and special privileges and immunities under the Fourteenth Amendment, and their

Estate of Wasilchen v. Gohrman

870 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 25, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights about which a reasonable person would have … The court, therefore, does not reach the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, a.

Armstrong v. Whalen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 31, 2020

No. 67.) 21 If a district court denies qualified immunity based on an issue of law, the denial is 22 appealable as a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mitchell v. … the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly 11 established Fourth Amendment rights when the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable 12 to Plaintiff.

Olsen v. United States Ex Rel. United States Department of Agriculture

546 F. Supp. 2d 1122 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 10, 2008

Moreover, the Plaintiffs have argued that the relationship between themselves and the FCIC can not be properly qualified as “reinsurance” for the purposes of state law. … Section 400.96 negates the Plaintiffs’ contention that the Policy and the SRA established privity of contract.

Seattle-First National Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co.

91 Wash. 2d 230 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1978

This, of course, is conduct "immunized" by our statute and not cognizable by the judiciary. … The concept of "successive" tort-feasors applies when none of the multiple tort-feasors could have caused the whole harm suffered and where the harm caused is clearly divisible. See Smith v.

Baker v. O'Reilly

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 9, 2024

Qualified Immunity 8 Defendants fail to identify any manifest error in the Court’s determination that they are 9 not entitled to qualified immunity. … “Put simply, qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent 18 or those who knowingly violate the law.’” Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12 (quoting Malley v.

Xieng v. Peoples National Bank

63 Wash. App. 572 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1991

Xieng's American military training was conducted in English, prepared him to be an air and sea rescue pilot, and required him to communicate clearly over military radio. … Nguyen, testified that Xieng's physical problems were "more likely than not" caused by the depression of his body's immune system due to emotional distress.

Finch v. Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 8, 2025

Qualified Immunity 2 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim for 3 damages unless the plaintiff raises a genuine issue of fact showing (1) … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

State v. Gedarro

19 Wash. App. 826 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 1978

Proscriptions imposed upon gambling activity are entirely within the legislative domain and are essentially immune from judicial interpretation. Northwest Greyhound "Kennel Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 8 Wn. … The statute clearly provides persons of ordinary intelligence and understanding with fair notice and ascertainable standards of the conduct sought to be proscribed. *832 The definition of professional gambling clearly focuses

Entertainment Industry Coalition v. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department

153 Wash. 2d 657 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2005

In some businesses, like a bar, tavern, bowling alley, tobacco shop, or restaurant, the statute allows an owner to create the entire establishment as a smoking establishment. … A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought. “(2) The amount awarded a qualified party under

McDevitt v. Harborview Med. Ctr.

Washington Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2012

As part of our reasoning in Hunter, we also noted that "[t]he unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity in the 1963 act thus clearly -6- McDevitt v. Harborview Med. … As a result, there were no facts in Waples to address the issue of whether article II, section 26, and the legislature's waiver of sovereign immunity, permitted the legislature to establish conditions precedent before