Case law

Brooke Howell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.

436 P.3d 368 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 12, 2019

It did argue, and argues on appeal, that discretionary immunity bars Ms. Howell’s claim. … If all of the preliminary questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, then the challenged act, omission, or decision can, with a reasonable degree of assurance, be classified as a discretionary

Crown West Realty, LLC v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd.

435 P.3d 288 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 26, 2019

According to the Conservancy Board, once a water right holder claims a municipal use, the right is immune from relinquishment. … As well as being critical to establishing the existence of a water right, beneficial use establishes the quantity of that right.

Metz

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 5, 2026

Hoagland is entitled to qualified immunity. Even if Metz’s § 1983 claims were not barred by Heck, Sgt. … (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Foster v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District

102 Wash. 2d 395 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1984

They claimed they were immune from prosecution under Const, art. 1, § 19. The court responded by setting forth those activities not protected by the provision. … The right of all constitutionally qualified citizens to vote is fundamental to our representative form of government.

State v. Unga

165 Wash. 2d 95 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 26, 2008

Ed. 2d 169 (1996), adhered to on remand, 124 F.3d 205 (7th Cir. 1997)). ¶45 Some tactics exert the clearly prohibited external or positive pressure, such as the truncheon to the head. See, e.g., Brown v. … Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d 118, 132 , 942 P.2d 263 (1997) (establishing the “totality of the circumstances” and stating, “[t]he court must determine whether there is a causal relationship between the promise and the confession”

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.

Town of Clyde Hill v. Rodriguez

65 Wash. App. 778 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 26, 1992

You further have the right to take one or more tests administered by a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of your choosing. … While this is clearly more meaningful than a bare statutory citation, there is no legal requirement that the police do so.

State v. Hobble

126 Wash. 2d 283 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1995

The prosecutor refused to grant Appellant immunity for the use of an alias, and Appellant argued that in the absence of a grant of immunity sufficient to cover such testimony, he was entitled to assert a privilege against … Unless the answer to a question would obviously and clearly incriminate the witness, the witness "must establish a factual predicate from which the court can, by use of 'reasonable judicial imagination’ (aided by suggestions

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.

Dormaier v. Soap Lake, City of

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 12, 2020

A 26 right is clearly established if the right’s contours are sufficiently definite such that 27 the question confronted by the officer is beyond debate. … With regard to excessive force 5 claims, the qualified immunity analysis is fact-intensive, and police officers are 6 entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent squarely governs the 7 specific facts at

King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board

138 Wash. 2d 161 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1999

The County further argued that the UGA provisions in the CPPs were not internally inconsistent and clearly mandated that the Bear Creek area be designated a UGA. … It held that CPPs may be directive and that King County’s CPPs clearly mandated that the Bear Creek area be designated urban.

State v. Sieyes

168 Wash. 2d 276 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 18, 2010

Ed. 2d 741 (1980)). *293 ¶29 Two textual exceptions qualify the scope of the right to keep and bear arms in the Washington Constitution. … For the purposes of this case, it is enough that the state constitutional right to bear arms is clearly an individual one. III.

In re the Marriage of Katare

175 Wash. 2d 23 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2012

According to Brajesh, these cases establish that abduction must be likely before his visitation time may be limited. … While Berry’s formal education was not related to child abduction, an expert may be qualified by experience alone. ER 702.

State ex rel. Weyant v. City of Seattle

127 Wash. 681 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1924

Weyant, who could not qualify under that provision. Any other facts which are pertinent will be mentioned as we proceed. … Clearly, in order *688 to justify the removal of Weyant, the commission must find that his qualifications no more than equal those of Messrs. Bean and Crell.

Green v. United States of America

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

In addition, 11 claims against many of the defendants, at least as pleaded, are invalid. 12 For example, the United States is immune, absent a waiver of sovereign immunity. Tobar 13 v. … Finally, qualified immunity “shields [government officials] from civil 20 damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly 21 established at the time of the challenged

Bistryski v. DOC Health Services of Stafford Creek Corrections Center

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 20, 2020

Adams, 901 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2018), the case cited 16 in the Report and Recommendation, his objections do not defeat the Defendants’ claims for 17 qualified immunity. … He fails to point to any case demonstrating that “at the time of the alleged 18 act or failure to act, there was clearly established law that defined the contours of the federal 19 right objectively putting the officials

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Department of Ecology

112 Wash. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 29, 2002

Moreover, qualifying the types of contracts excluded from the act reduces the number of contracts barred from review under the WAPA. … The Tribe claims that the federal agencies cannot qualify as “parties to an agency proceeding” because the negotiation and execution of the IFA was not an “agency proceeding.”

Doscher v. Kroger Co

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

Two questions must be answered when a defendant 16 raises the defense of qualified immunity: (1) whether qualified immunity is categorically 17 available; and (2) if qualified immunity is available generally, whether … Williams, 763 F.3d at 1009. 1 To determine whether Officer Thompson is entitled to qualified immunity requires a 2 “particularized analysis” of whether he “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory

Elizabeth Olson v. Tukwila School District

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 12, 2015

To be immune, the landowner must establish that the use (1) was open to members of the public (2) for recreational purposes and that (3) no fee of any kind was charged. … the landowner did not qualify for recreational immunity because the invitation to enter the land depended on the user's religious affiliation.

Michael Michelbrink, Jr. v. Washington State Patrol

191 Wash. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 24, 2015

But because the legislature intended to immunize employers from civil suits for workplace injuries, the IIA established a general prohibition on all civil suits for damages arising out of workplace injuries, with only a … Thus, our Supreme Court clearly established that every element of the deliberate intention exception should be interpreted narrowly.