governmental entity violation in Washington

14 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Baerlein v. Stategreen wash · 1979 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988"If a statute evidences an intent to protect a particular class of individuals, a member of that class may bring a tort action against a governmental entity for its violation of the statute." Honcoop , at 188; see Baerlein v. State, 92 Wn.2d 229, 232 , 595 P.2d 930 (1979). 1988"If a statute evidences an intent to protect a particular class of individuals, a member of that class may bring a tort action against a governmental entity for its violation of the statute." Honcoop , at 188; see Baerlein v. State, 92 Wn.2d 229, 232 , 595 P.2d 930 (1979).	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Leavitt green washctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2008The crux of the matter is whether the individual was affirmatively misled, because "[i]gnorance of the law is generally no defense, although a narrowly defined class of cases has determined that affirmative, misleading information from a governmental entity is a violation of due process." State v. Sweeney, 125 Wash.App. 77, 83 , 104 P.3d 46 (2005) (citing State v. Leavitt, 107 Wash.App. 361, 371 , 27 P.3d 622 (2001)). ¶ 23 For example, in State v. Moore, 121 Wash.App. 889, 896 , 91 P.3d 136 (2004), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an unlawful possession of a firearm 2008The crux of the matter is whether the individual was affirmatively misled, because "[i]gnorance of the law is generally no defense, although a narrowly defined class of cases has determined that affirmative, misleading information from a governmental entity is a violation of due process." State v. Sweeney, 125 Wash.App. 77, 83 , 104 P.3d 46 (2005) (citing State v. Leavitt, 107 Wash.App. 361, 371 , 27 P.3d 622 (2001)). ¶ 23 For example, in State v. Moore, 121 Wash.App. 889, 896 , 91 P.3d 136 (2004), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an unlawful possession of a firearm	4	2005–2008
Ravenscroft v. Washington Water Power Co. green wash · 1998 2 sentences 2011Ravenscroft, 136 Wash.2d at 929 , 969 P.2d 75 . ¶ 10 Here, the stated intent of I-960, codified at former chapter 43.135 RCW, the TPA, was "to protect taxpayers by creating a series of accountability procedures to ensure greater legislative transparency, broader public participation, and wider agreement before state government takes more of the people's money. 2011Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 929 . ¶10 Here, the stated intent of 1-960, codified at former chapter 43.135 RCW, the TPA, was “to protect taxpayers by creating a series of accountability procedures to ensure greater legislative transparency, broader public participation, and wider agreement before state government takes more of the people’s money.	3	2008–2011
U.S. Oil Trading, LLC v. Office of Financial Management neutral washctapp · 2011 2 sentences 2011Mgmt., 159 Wash.App. 357, 363 , 249 P.3d 630 (2011), petition for review filed, No. 85616-8 (Wash. Feb. 11, 2011). ¶ 27 When Washington courts have identified a specific duty of care under the legislative intent exception, they have found that the applicable statute expressly focuses on the protection of a specific class of individuals. 2011Mgmt., 159 Wn.	2	2011–2011
State v. Leavitt green washctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2008The crux of the matter is whether the individual was affirmatively misled, because "[i]gnorance of the law is generally no defense, although a narrowly defined class of cases has determined that affirmative, misleading information from a governmental entity is a violation of due process." State v. Sweeney, 125 Wash.App. 77, 83 , 104 P.3d 46 (2005) (citing State v. Leavitt, 107 Wash.App. 361, 371 , 27 P.3d 622 (2001)). ¶ 23 For example, in State v. Moore, 121 Wash.App. 889, 896 , 91 P.3d 136 (2004), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an unlawful possession of a firearm 2008The crux of the matter is whether the individual was affirmatively misled, because "[i]gnorance of the law is generally no defense, although a narrowly defined class of cases has determined that affirmative, misleading information from a governmental entity is a violation of due process." State v. Sweeney, 125 Wash.App. 77, 83 , 104 P.3d 46 (2005) (citing State v. Leavitt, 107 Wash.App. 361, 371 , 27 P.3d 622 (2001)). ¶ 23 For example, in State v. Moore, 121 Wash.App. 889, 896 , 91 P.3d 136 (2004), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an unlawful possession of a firearm	2	2005–2008
State v. Sweeney green washctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2008The crux of the matter is whether the individual was affirmatively misled, because "[i]gnorance of the law is generally no defense, although a narrowly defined class of cases has determined that affirmative, misleading information from a governmental entity is a violation of due process." State v. Sweeney, 125 Wash.App. 77, 83 , 104 P.3d 46 (2005) (citing State v. Leavitt, 107 Wash.App. 361, 371 , 27 P.3d 622 (2001)). ¶ 23 For example, in State v. Moore, 121 Wash.App. 889, 896 , 91 P.3d 136 (2004), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an unlawful possession of a firearm 2008App. 77, 83 , 104 P.3d 46 (2005) (citing State v. Leavitt, 107 Wn.	2	2008–2008
State v. Sweeney green washctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2008The crux of the matter is whether the individual was affirmatively misled, because "[i]gnorance of the law is generally no defense, although a narrowly defined class of cases has determined that affirmative, misleading information from a governmental entity is a violation of due process." State v. Sweeney, 125 Wash.App. 77, 83 , 104 P.3d 46 (2005) (citing State v. Leavitt, 107 Wash.App. 361, 371 , 27 P.3d 622 (2001)). ¶ 23 For example, in State v. Moore, 121 Wash.App. 889, 896 , 91 P.3d 136 (2004), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an unlawful possession of a firearm 2008The crux of the matter is whether the individual was affirmatively misled, because “[fignorance of the law is generally no defense, although a narrowly defined class of cases has determined that affirmative, misleading information from a governmental entity is a violation of due process.” State v. Sweeney, 125 Wn.	2	2008–2008
Honcoop v. State green wash · 1988 2 sentences 1998Honcoop, 111 Wash.2d at 188 , 759 P.2d 1188 . 1998Honcoop, 111 Wash.2d at 188 , 759 P.2d 1188 .	2	1998–1998
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc. green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2021To avoid application of RCW 4.96.020(4), Kylie Hanson forwards the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 170 Wn.2d 380 , 241 P.3d 1256 (2010) for the proposition that an employee may be held personally liable for her tortious conduct regardless if she committed the tort in the course of employment.	1	2021–2021
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc. green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2021To avoid application of RCW 4.96.020(4), Kylie Hanson forwards the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 170 Wn.2d 380 , 241 P.3d 1256 (2010) for the proposition that an employee may be held personally liable for her tortious conduct regardless if she committed the tort in the course of employment.	1	2021–2021
Ravenscroft v. Washington Water Power green wash · 1998 1 sentence 2011Ravenscroft, 136 Wash.2d at 929 , 969 P.2d 75 . ¶ 10 Here, the stated intent of I-960, codified at former chapter 43.135 RCW, the TPA, was "to protect taxpayers by creating a series of accountability procedures to ensure greater legislative transparency, broader public participation, and wider agreement before state government takes more of the people's money.	1	2011–2011
US OIL TRADING, LLC v. State neutral washctapp · 2011 1 sentence 2011Mgmt., 159 Wash.App. 357, 363 , 249 P.3d 630 (2011), petition for review filed, No. 85616-8 (Wash. Feb. 11, 2011). ¶ 27 When Washington courts have identified a specific duty of care under the legislative intent exception, they have found that the applicable statute expressly focuses on the protection of a specific class of individuals.	1	2011–2011
State v. Carter green washctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2008An example of facts that would lead to the conclusion that the individual had actual knowledge or notice is found in State v. Carter, 127 Wash.App. 713 , 112 P.3d 561 (2005).	1	2008–2008
State v. Moore green washctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2008The crux of the matter is whether the individual was affirmatively misled, because "[i]gnorance of the law is generally no defense, although a narrowly defined class of cases has determined that affirmative, misleading information from a governmental entity is a violation of due process." State v. Sweeney, 125 Wash.App. 77, 83 , 104 P.3d 46 (2005) (citing State v. Leavitt, 107 Wash.App. 361, 371 , 27 P.3d 622 (2001)). ¶ 23 For example, in State v. Moore, 121 Wash.App. 889, 896 , 91 P.3d 136 (2004), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an unlawful possession of a firearm	1	2008–2008
State v. Carter green washctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2008An example of facts that would lead to the conclusion that the individual had actual knowledge or notice is found in State v. Carter, 127 Wash.App. 713 , 112 P.3d 561 (2005).	1	2008–2008
State v. Moore green washctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2008The crux of the matter is whether the individual was affirmatively misled, because "[i]gnorance of the law is generally no defense, although a narrowly defined class of cases has determined that affirmative, misleading information from a governmental entity is a violation of due process." State v. Sweeney, 125 Wash.App. 77, 83 , 104 P.3d 46 (2005) (citing State v. Leavitt, 107 Wash.App. 361, 371 , 27 P.3d 622 (2001)). ¶ 23 For example, in State v. Moore, 121 Wash.App. 889, 896 , 91 P.3d 136 (2004), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an unlawful possession of a firearm	1	2008–2008
Halvorson v. Dahl green wash · 1978 2 sentences 1988Baerlein v. State, 92 Wn.2d 229, 231-32 , 595 P.2d 930 (1979); Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673, 676 , 574 P.2d 1190 (1978). 1988Baerlein v. State, 92 Wn.2d 229, 231-32 , 595 P.2d 930 (1979); Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673, 676 , 574 P.2d 1190 (1978).	1	1988–1988

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.010 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.040 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.047 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 70 (1988–2025) WA 14 (1988–2021) IN 12 (1980–2026) MS 7 (1998–2018) NC 6 (2000–2026) CA 4 (2004–2007) ME 4 (1988–2020) SC 3 (1999–2020) VA 3 (2012–2016) CO 2 (2007–2018) DE 2 (2023–2023) ID 2 (1990–2013) PA 2 (1989–1993) MI 2 (1997–2012) NM 2 (1987–1987) WY 2 (1996–2022) TN 2 (1999–2018)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance