immunity rule in Washington

2024“Congress has consistently reiterated its approval of the immunity doctrine.” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 510 , 111 S. Ct. 905 , 112 L.

2024“Congress has consistently reiterated its approval of the immunity doctrine.” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 510 , 111 S. Ct. 905 , 112 L.

2008McGee, 936 S.W.2d at 369 . ¶40 The Court of Appeals held “stepparents who are obligated to support stepchildren under the family support statute are protected by the immunity doctrine to the same extent as legal parents.” Zellmer, 132 Wn.

2008McGee, 936 S.W.2d at 369 . ¶ 40 The Court of Appeals held "stepparents who are obligated to support stepchildren under the family support statute are protected by the immunity doctrine to the same extent as legal parents." Zellmer, 132 Wash.App. at 683 , 133 P.3d 948 .

2008McGee, 936 S.W.2d at 369 . ¶40 The Court of Appeals held “stepparents who are obligated to support stepchildren under the family support statute are protected by the immunity doctrine to the same extent as legal parents.” Zellmer, 132 Wn.

2008McGee, 936 S.W.2d at 369 . ¶ 40 The Court of Appeals held "stepparents who are obligated to support stepchildren under the family support statute are protected by the immunity doctrine to the same extent as legal parents." Zellmer, 132 Wash.App. at 683 , 133 P.3d 948 .

2023Nauroth v. Spokane County, 121 Wn.

2019Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 214 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992).

2019Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 214 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992).

2017Wash. 2015) (Trueblood II), rev’d in part, 822 F.3d 1037 . 5 ¶27 More recently, another Washington federal district court ruled for purposes of an immunity defense in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 damages action that it was “clearly established” that “indefinitely incarcerating incompetent defendants while they awaited competency restoration, because there was not room in the state hospital, violated their constitutional due process rights.” Willis v. Wash. State *897 Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., No. C16-5113 RBL, 2017 WL 1064390 , at *6, 2017 U.S. Dist.

2008McGee, 936 S.W.2d at 369 . ¶ 40 The Court of Appeals held "stepparents who are obligated to support stepchildren under the family support statute are protected by the immunity doctrine to the same extent as legal parents." Zellmer, 132 Wash.App. at 683 , 133 P.3d 948 .

2006We approve of that analysis.")). [5] See Merrick, 93 Wash.2d at 416 , 610 P.2d 891 . [6] London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211, 215-16 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954).

2006We approve of that analysis.")). [5] See Merrick, 93 Wash.2d at 416 , 610 P.2d 891 . [6] London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Smith, 242 Minn. 211, 215-16 , 64 N.W.2d 781 (1954).

2006Stat. Ann. 60/21.02 (2005). [3] State v. Southard, 49 Wash.App. 59 , 63 n. 3, 741 P.2d 78 (1987) (quoting Smith v. Fitch, 25 Wash.2d 619, 626-27 , 171 P.2d 682 (1946)). [4] (Emphasis added). [5] (Emphasis added). [6] (Emphasis added). [7] Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 179, cmt. f (1965). [8] State v. Comer, 176 Wash. 257, 263 , 28 P.2d 1027 (1934). [9] See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 222 (1965). [10] See Comer, 176 Wash. at 265 , 28 P.2d 1027 (1934) ("We hold that the proper construction of the trust deed is that the immunity clause does not destroy the trust created by the deed . . .

2006Stat. Ann. 60/21.02 (2005). [3] State v. Southard, 49 Wash.App. 59 , 63 n. 3, 741 P.2d 78 (1987) (quoting Smith v. Fitch, 25 Wash.2d 619, 626-27 , 171 P.2d 682 (1946)). [4] (Emphasis added). [5] (Emphasis added). [6] (Emphasis added). [7] Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 179, cmt. f (1965). [8] State v. Comer, 176 Wash. 257, 263 , 28 P.2d 1027 (1934). [9] See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 222 (1965). [10] See Comer, 176 Wash. at 265 , 28 P.2d 1027 (1934) ("We hold that the proper construction of the trust deed is that the immunity clause does not destroy the trust created by the deed . . .

2006No. 1, 105 Wash.2d 99, 104 , 713 P.2d 79 (1986)). [4] Borst, 41 Wash.2d at 656 , 251 P.2d 149 (cited with approval in Merrick, 93 Wash.2d at 413 , 610 P.2d 891 ("In an exhaustive opinion, ... this court examined and renounced most of the policy considerations advanced by the cases to justify the doctrine of immunity.

2006No. 1, 105 Wash.2d 99, 104 , 713 P.2d 79 (1986)). [4] Borst, 41 Wash.2d at 656 , 251 P.2d 149 (cited with approval in Merrick, 93 Wash.2d at 413 , 610 P.2d 891 ("In an exhaustive opinion, ... this court examined and renounced most of the policy considerations advanced by the cases to justify the doctrine of immunity.

2006Stat. Ann. 60/21.02 (2005). [3] State v. Southard, 49 Wash.App. 59 , 63 n. 3, 741 P.2d 78 (1987) (quoting Smith v. Fitch, 25 Wash.2d 619, 626-27 , 171 P.2d 682 (1946)). [4] (Emphasis added). [5] (Emphasis added). [6] (Emphasis added). [7] Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 179, cmt. f (1965). [8] State v. Comer, 176 Wash. 257, 263 , 28 P.2d 1027 (1934). [9] See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 222 (1965). [10] See Comer, 176 Wash. at 265 , 28 P.2d 1027 (1934) ("We hold that the proper construction of the trust deed is that the immunity clause does not destroy the trust created by the deed . . .

2006Stat. Ann. 60/21.02 (2005). [3] State v. Southard, 49 Wash.App. 59 , 63 n. 3, 741 P.2d 78 (1987) (quoting Smith v. Fitch, 25 Wash.2d 619, 626-27 , 171 P.2d 682 (1946)). [4] (Emphasis added). [5] (Emphasis added). [6] (Emphasis added). [7] Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 179, cmt. f (1965). [8] State v. Comer, 176 Wash. 257, 263 , 28 P.2d 1027 (1934). [9] See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 222 (1965). [10] See Comer, 176 Wash. at 265 , 28 P.2d 1027 (1934) ("We hold that the proper construction of the trust deed is that the immunity clause does not destroy the trust created by the deed . . .

2004App. 431, 435-36 , 979 P.2d 917 (1999) (also reasoning that an immunity claim under former ROW 4.24.510 was an affirmative defense); CR 8(c).

1992Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 819 .

1987Jaime T., 408 N.Y.S.2d at 905 ; Steinberger, 596 P.2d at 757 ; cf. Runions, 100 Wn.2d at 58 (defendant's testimony cannot incriminate him with respect to a crime for which he has already been convicted and sentenced.) Therefore, since the "function and utility" of the immunity rule exist "so long as defendant's testimony might incriminate him or tend to subject him to additional penalties", Runions, 100 Wn.2d at 57-58 , the rule must be applicable to a defendant such as McCullough whose testimony is compelled before he is sentenced.

1987Jaime T., 408 N.Y.S.2d at 905 ; Steinberger, 596 P.2d at 757 ; cf. Runions, 100 Wn.2d at 58 (defendant's testimony cannot incriminate him with respect to a crime for which he has already been convicted and sentenced.) Therefore, since the "function and utility" of the immunity rule exist "so long as defendant's testimony might incriminate him or tend to subject him to additional penalties", Runions, 100 Wn.2d at 57-58 , the rule must be applicable to a defendant such as McCullough whose testimony is compelled before he is sentenced.

1987However, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986), the Court of Appeals concluded that its prior decisions construed the immunity doctrine too narrowly by focusing on the underlying actions instead of looking to the ultimate acts.

1979Super. 294 , 176 A.2d 818 (1962); Parks v. Parks, 390 Pa. 287 , 135 A.2d 65 (1957); and Johnson v. Myers, 2 Ill.

1979Super. 294 , 176 A.2d 818 (1962); Parks v. Parks, 390 Pa. 287 , 135 A.2d 65 (1957); and Johnson v. Myers, 2 Ill.

1979While no Washington case is directly on point, Johnson v. Ottomeier, 45 Wn.2d 419 , 275 P.2d 723 (1954); and Hoffman v. Tracy, 67 Wn.2d 31 , 406 P.2d 323 (1965), provide support by analogy for this additional exception to the immunity rule.

1979While no Washington case is directly on point, Johnson v. Ottomeier, 45 Wn.2d 419 , 275 P.2d 723 (1954); and Hoffman v. Tracy, 67 Wn.2d 31 , 406 P.2d 323 (1965), provide support by analogy for this additional exception to the immunity rule.

1979Super. 294 , 176 A.2d 818 (1962); Parks v. Parks, 390 Pa. 287 , 135 A.2d 65 (1957); and Johnson v. Myers, 2 Ill.

1979Super. 294 , 176 A.2d 818 (1962); Parks v. Parks, 390 Pa. 287 , 135 A.2d 65 (1957); and Johnson v. Myers, 2 Ill.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966)); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966) ); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966)); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966) ); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.

1979While no Washington case is directly on point, Johnson v. Ottomeier, 45 Wn.2d 419 , 275 P.2d 723 (1954); and Hoffman v. Tracy, 67 Wn.2d 31 , 406 P.2d 323 (1965), provide support by analogy for this additional exception to the immunity rule.

1979While no Washington case is directly on point, Johnson v. Ottomeier, 45 Wn.2d 419 , 275 P.2d 723 (1954); and Hoffman v. Tracy, 67 Wn.2d 31 , 406 P.2d 323 (1965), provide support by analogy for this additional exception to the immunity rule.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966)); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966)); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966)); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966) ); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966)); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.

1979Where only the parent is deceased, see, e.g., Union Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 362 F.2d 311 (1966), later appealed, 396 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1968) (applying Georgia law and holding that the immunity doctrine is abrogated to the extent of insurance coverage); Thurman v. Etherton, 459 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970); Brennecke v. Kilpatrick, 336 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1960); Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314 , 211 A.2d 410 (1965) (decided before abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432 , 224 A.2d 588 (1966)); Palcsey v. Tepper, 71 N.J.