Case law

Hanson v. Hutt

83 Wash. 2d 195 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1974

Both cases are clearly distinguishable, since neither involves the constitutionality of a statute. … many of these women were justifiably disqualified because they voluntarily quit work, or because they were unable to work, or because they were not seeking work, or for any other reasons for which a claimant may not be qualified

Story v. Shelter Bay Company

52 Wash. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 6, 1988

The burden of establishing abuse of a qualified privilege rests on the defamed *342 party, who must show by clear and convincing evidence the declarant's knowledge of the falsity, or his or her reckless disregard as to the … That decision states in part that: The defendant corporation has the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was an abuse of a qualified privilege.

Deng v. Seattle Municipal Court

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 17, 2021

and qualified immunity, and because the Court 4 lacks jurisdiction over the claims. … Under 2 the doctrine of qualified immunity, officers cannot face liability for damages when “their 3 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 4 reasonable person would

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Indian Reservation v. Lujan

129 F.R.D. 171 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 8, 1990

Plaintiffs concede that the Quinault Indian Tribe is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and cannot be joined in this action. Santa Clara Pueblo v. … Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertion that there would be no impairment of the Quinault Tribe’s legal or treaty rights through court action, there clearly would be prejudice to the Quinault Indian Tribe if the court were to find

Johnson v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2023

Immunity: Qualified immunity involves a two- pronged inquiry: (i) whether the facts, taken “in the light most favorable” 14 … App’x 614, 616 (9th Cir. 2017) (summarizing the “clearly established” law as of 22 1 December 2010).

Ellis v. Pierce County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 26, 2022

Additionally, Redding 19 contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly 20 established right by deploying Zepp to bite and apprehend Ellis. Id. at 5–6. … immunity test: whether 8 the right at issue was clearly established.

Matheson v. Washington State Liquor Control Board

132 Wash. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 28, 2006

Where a legitimate public interest exists, the statute “ ‘ “will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” ’ ” Id. at 832 (quoting Franks & Sons … Matheson does not qualify for this exemption. See also RCW 82.24.500 (requiring a Washington wholesaler’s license to engage in cigarette distribution in this state). ¶23 While Mr.

Bohme v. Pemco Mutual Insurance

127 Wash. 2d 409 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1995

The court thus established a two-part test for examining the validity of UIM exclusions: Does the proposed exclusion conflict with the express language of the UIM statute? … bare minimum of coverage necessary to qualify under various financial responsibility laws. 8C John A.

The Estate Of Daniel A. Mccartney, V. Pierce County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 28, 2022

If these questions can clearly be answered in the affirmative, then the challenged government decision falls within the exception, “regardless of its unwisdom.” … Employer Immunity Under the worker compensation laws, law enforcement organizations are exempt from employer immunity.

Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc.

128 Wash. 2d 931 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1996

Determining what qualifies as a clear mandate of public policy is a question of law. Dicomes, 113 Wn.2d at 617 . … One statute gives citizens who aid police officers the same civil and criminal immunity as such officers. RCW 9.01.055.

Ventenbergs v. City of Seattle

178 P.3d 960 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 21, 2008

Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 278 , 52 S.Ct. 371 , 76 L.Ed. 747 (1932) ("[N]othing is more clearly settled than that it is beyond the power of a state, `under the guise of protecting the public, arbitrarily [to] interfere with … Eastman, Re-evaluating the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 6 Chap.

Blocktree Props., LLC v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant Cnty. Wash., Mun. Corp.

380 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 29, 2019

The District is a municipal corporation established pursuant to Washington statutes. Wash. Rev. Code § 54.04.020 . … privilege or immunity.

Weldeyohannes v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 4, 2024

9 Defendants’ qualified immunity. … According to the doctrine, individuals are 7 immune from § 1983 liability unless their conduct amounted to a “deprivation of a constitutional 8 or statutory right . . . that was clearly established at the time of the

Zayas v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 12, 2024

Lastly, 23 government officials are entitled to qualified immunity, which “shields government officials 24 from civil damages liability unless … the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Smelser v. Paul

Washington Supreme Court · Jul 6, 2017

While we call this "immunity," it is akin to discretionary governmental immunity,judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, and similar doctrines establishing that the conduct in question is simply not tortious. … The legislature has clearly determined that the plaintiff(in this case, the child) must bear the financial consequences where fault is apportioned to an immune entity pursuant to RCW 4.22.070.

Black Ball Freight Service v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission

77 Wash. 2d 479 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1969

The fact of increased competition alone was no legal significance since appellants are not entitled to immunity from competition. See State ex rel. Adams Transport, Inc. v. Washington Pub. Serv. … This action was initiated before the amendment of RCW 34.04.130(6), which substituted the “clearly erroneous” test for the “material and substantial evidence” test.

McClung v. Pratt

44 Wash. 2d 779 · Washington Supreme Court · May 27, 1954

employers and workmen (other than railways and their workmen) engaged in intrastate and also in interstate or foreign commerce, for whom a rule of liability or method of compensation now exists under or may hereafter be established … , That as to workmen whose payroll is not so clearly separable and distinguishable, the employer shall in all cases be liable in damages for injuries to the same extent and under the same circumstances as is specified in

Whiteside v. State of Wash.

534 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 26, 1982

These interests may flow from the Constitution or be established by state law. The causation requirement for civil rights claims is not satisfied by alleging mere causation in fact. … Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1976) (judge who ordered sterilization of a minor at her mother’s request held immune because no state law clearly excluded the matter from the court’s subject matter

Cannabis Action Coalition v. City Of Kent

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 31, 2014

As drafted by the legislature, ESSSB 5073 established a state-run registry system for qualified patients and providers. … with the registry established in section 901.

J.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. … 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