Case law

Lowe's Home Centers, Llc v. Dept. Of Revenue, State Of Wa

425 P.3d 959 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 5, 2018

All marketing and promotional materials given to customers had to “clearly disclose that Bank is the owner and creditor on all Accounts.” CP at 134. … Under article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution, “[n]o law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation . . . privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally

Northwestern National Insurance v. Fishback

130 Wash. 490 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1924

without due process; and that the right to contract for one’s services in a lawful calling is a right guaranteed by the constitution; and that, under the constitution, every individual is entitled to all privileges and immunities … times receive fair and equitable treatment; it is merely an interference with what has always been one of the ordinary businesses engaged in by whoever saw fit to do so; it prescribes no mental or moral qualifications, establishes

Matheson v. STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BD.

130 P.3d 897 · 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." … 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.

Parker v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 16, 2022

and (2) whether the “right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at 7 the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Ficek violated his constitutional right, the Court need 22 not address the second qualified immunity question: whether that right was clearly established. 1 suggesting that the City’s training program was deficient or

Shopbell v. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 18, 2021

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 14 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … right was not clearly established at the time.

Potter v. Washington State Patrol

166 P.3d 684 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2007

The State argues that Savage is inapplicable as a qualified immunity case. It suggests that to rely on Savage would erode a distinction between privileges and immunities. … Page Keeton ed., 5th ed.1984) (stating that privileges involve justifiable motives, while an immunity permits no inquiry into motives)). ¶ 13 The suggested distinction between privileges and immunities is not undermined by

Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Wiscomb

95 Wash. 2d 373 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1980

Clearly, as the Court of Appeals concluded, *377 one spouse may sue the other for negligence after Freehe . … The established methods of detecting and discouraging fraud can be applied to intrafamily claims without the effect of denying coverage to bona fide claimants. Borst v. Borst, supra .

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen

407 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2005

To establish antitrust immunity, Defendants must satisfy two elements: (1) the “challenged restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy’ and (2) “the *1244 policy must be ‘actively … Hedlund, 813 F.2d 1344, 1351-52 (9th Cir.1987) (state’s failure to show active supervision defeats antitrust immunity exemption, making it unnecessary to consider “clearly articulated” requirement). 4.

Gross v. City of Lynnwood

90 Wash. 2d 395 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1978

The complaint was, in appellant's own words, "clearly based" on RCW 49.60. … Here, quite clearly, the two laws can stand together.

Sanchez v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 15, 2023

Clearly Established? … For 4 purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when it is sufficiently clear that 5 every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

Washington State Grange v. Locke

153 Wash. 2d 475 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2005

Therefore, he vetoed the sections establishing the top two primary, leaving the Montana primary system in its place. … established precedent to this case, we must first look to the common and ordinary meaning of “AN ACT Relating to a qualifying primary” by referring to a dictionary definition of the title’s terms.

State ex rel. State Reclamation Board v. Clausen

110 Wash. 525 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1920

"What was clearly a public use a century ago, may, because of changed conditions, have ceased to be such today. … Some contention is made that 'the law is unconstitutional in that it violates the equal privileges and immunities guaranty of our constitution, because it contemplates, in the disposition of the lands, the giving of preference

Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Sims

193 Wash. 2d 86 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2019

City ofSeattle, 132 Wn.2d 214, 937 P.2d 186 (1997). 8 No. 95479-8 underlying basis for finding an implied waiver of sovereign immunity as to payment of interest is not established … Moreover, the purpose ofRCW 7.21.030 is clearly to compel compliance. The remedial sanctions the statute expressly authorizes provide the parameters for such coercion.

Medicraft v. State of Washington

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

immunity. 1 by the State; and, (2) that, in any event, the State has waived the privilege under Hearn because 2 Leuzzi asserted a qualified immunity defense.3 Dkt. 182 at 1-2. … State, 200 Wash. 2d 145, 158-59 (2022) (qualified 8 immunity not available to government entities). Therefore, the Court holds that the State has not 9 waived its privilege.

Durham v. Wilke

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 23, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity 15 protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their 16 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 17 which … “In determining whether an 19 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a 20 violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established 1 at the

Kalmas v. Wagner

133 Wash. 2d 210 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1997

Because we find that no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurred, we need not address the parties’ arguments regarding the under color of law requirement for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , or qualified immunity. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Pendleton v. Jordan

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

immunity defense before requiring them to engage in discovery with Plaintiff unless 10 “some limited discovery is necessary to determine whether defendants are entitled to qualified 11 immunity” in which case “only discovery … related 17 to the issue of qualified immunity, “not the broad-based discovery [Plaintiff] has thus far 18 propounded” is not well taken.

Keppeler v. Board of Trustees

38 Wash. App. 729 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 31, 1984

Keppeler contends the Board's decision was clearly erroneous. … Finally, since the qualifications for the instructor of the proposed tree fruit production program have not been *734 established, it is impossible to determine whether Dr.

Ruff v. County of King

125 Wash. 2d 697 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1995

The striping along the roadway was clearly visible. The speed limit was clearly posted. … Notwithstanding, Ruff argues that his experts *705 establish the need for a guardrail at the accident site, thus creating an issue of fact as to King County’s negligence.

State v. Ginn

117 P.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 9, 2005

RCW 69.51A.010(3)(d). ¶ 28 Our review of the record establishes that Ginn presented evidence of each element of the "qualifying patient" defense under the Act. … RCW 69.51A.010(5)(a). ¶ 31 Ginn did not present "valid documentation" establishing that Otterson was a qualifying patient.