Case law

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

Yonker v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERV.

930 P.2d 958 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 1997

Neither of these qualifiers necessarily means that the protected group must be small or narrow. Indeed, such is not the requirement. … The Legislature imposed a specific duty on the Department, and the Legislature has abrogated governmental immunity (RCW 4.96.010).

Avnet, Inc., Respondent/cross-appellant v. Dept. Of Revenue, Appellant/cross-respondent

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 28, 2015

These sales were " so clearly interstate in character that the State could not reasonably attribute their proceeds to the local business." Norton 340 U. … The Court soundly rejected this immunity in Complete Auto Transit, expressly overruling precedents to the contrary. 430 U.S. at 288 -89.

Weikal v. Department of Fisheries

37 Wash. App. 322 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 11, 1984

His 1981 application was denied because he did not qualify for a license under RCW 75.28.275 (the crab license law) which requires applicants to have held a license for at least 1 year between 1975 and 1979. … Article 1, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution states: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms

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

Seattle Police Officers' Guild v. City of Seattle

80 Wash. 2d 307 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1972

In such a case, the employee's right to immunity as a result of his compelled testimony would not be at stake. … And even assuming that it can be shown that the operator is highly qualified, the objections to the use of the machine still outweigh the arguments in its favor.

Dodge v. Evergreen School District

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 3, 2021

14 qualified immunity.” … Dodge’s right to wear his MAGA hat was not so 14 “clearly established” as to defeat Ms. Garrett’s assertion of qualified immunity. 15 In his response, Mr.

Berg v. Bethel School District

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 19, 2021

DISCUSSION 18 The remaining issues for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment are whether 19 C.K.M.’s constitutional rights were clearly established to preclude qualified immunity … functions enjoy qualified 2 immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly 3 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 4 known.’”

Metcalf v. Key

District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 9, 2019

Immunity Standard 27 Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual 28 capacities from liability in § 1983 suits. … Defendants are entitled to 16 qualified immunity.

Meaney v. Dodd

111 Wash. 2d 174 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1988

Although the Legislature abolished sovereign immunity for municipal corporations in 1967, 2 it did not thereby create any new causes of action or liability. J & B Dev. Co. v. … No special relationship was established giving rise to an actionable duty. In light of our decision, we need not address the issues of immunity and exhaustion of remedies raised by the County.

State v. Kroll

87 Wash. 2d 829 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1976

instruction placed an unconstitutional burden of proof on the defendant: “ ‘In all cases where the unlawful killing is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and where there is nothing *840 in the circumstances of the case to explain, qualify … It is not necessary to establish intent by direct and positive evidence but intent may be established by inference and in the same way as any other fact by taking into consideration the acts of the parties and all the facts

King v. Rushford

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2021

Qualified immunity “shields Government officials from liability for civil damages 12 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 13 rights.” Ashcroft v. … at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged 17 violation.

Malone v. Strong

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 22, 2023

7 Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for 8 civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 9 of which a … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is 5 clearly established when it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have 6 understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

State of Washington v. Adriane Constantine

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 31, 2014

Constantine stated in her motion that she was not asserting an affirmative defense based on her individual status as a qualifYing patient, she nevertheless presented two authorization documents to establish her qualifYing … The dissent's point would be well taken had the trial court permitted such records to establish the nature of the qualifYing condition. However, the trial court did not permit this. Rather, it required Ms.

Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

130 Wash. 2d 160 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1996

I strongly disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that Rogers either establishes binding precedent or makes good sense. … PPG Industries, which established strict liability as the standard for failure to warn. In either case, Rogers went astray.

Armstrong v. Whalen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 5, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 19 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 20 rights of which a reasonable … Under those circumstances, the deputies violated clearly 14 established law.

Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent

183 Wash. 2d 219 · Washington Supreme Court · May 21, 2015

Under the bill, qualifying patients could establish collective gardens for the purpose of growing medical mari *224 juana for personal use. Id. § 403 (codified at RCW 69.51A-.085). … It warned that the legislature’s bill authorized conduct illegal under federal law, noted that Washington State employees who administered the registry would not be immune from federal prosecution, and threatened such prosecution

Johnigan v. City of Vancouver

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 2, 2021

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY – GENERALLY 18 Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for 19 civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly … Qualified Immunity?

Corp. of Catholic Archbishop v. Johnston

89 Wash. 2d 505 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1978

An examination of the relevant statutory language 2 clearly reveals the importance of both ownership and use in determining eligibility for exemption. … The property must be owned by a qualifying organization, arid it must be used for a qualifying purpose.

Strand v. Rocha

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 15, 2020

immunity. … the complaining party can demonstrate that a “clearly established” constitutional right has been 13 violated (Saucier v.