extended rule in Washington

2020That decision imported the policy underlying quasi-judicial immunity to the interpretation of a statute granting only a qualified immunity to certain law enforcement officers for actions which are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial, the seizing and impounding of vehicles under the statute.” Id.

2017In Keck, the court extended the rule in Burnet to the exclusion of untimely filed evidence in the 8 No. 48458-7-II context of a summary judgment motion. 184 Wn.2d at 368-69 .

2005The court extended the rule to apply strict liability to product sellers in Seattle-First National Bank v. Tabert, 86 Wn.2d 145 , 542 P.2d 774 (1975).

2005The court extended the rule to apply strict liability to product sellers in Seattle-First National Bank v. Tabert, 86 Wn.2d 145 , 542 P.2d 774 (1975).

1991App. 393 , 461 P.2d 895 (1969), where Division One of this court extended the rule of Ruth v. Dight, supra (sponge in the abdomen) to cases of misdiagnosis.

1991App. 393 , 461 P.2d 895 (1969), where Division One of this court extended the rule of Ruth v. Dight, supra (sponge in the abdomen) to cases of misdiagnosis.

1976Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 , 87 S.Ct. 1975 (1967).

1976Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 , 87 S.Ct. 1975 (1967).

1896This court in Zintek v. Stimson Mill Co., 6 Wash. 178 ( 32 Pac. 997 ), held that, “ A yard boss of a lumber yard who has entire control of the yard with power to hire and discharge workmen, and to employ them under his Orders, is a vice principal, and not a fellow servant of the men who work under his control and superintendence.” And upon a second appeal in the same case, in 9 Wash. 395 ( 37 Pac. 340 ), this proposition was reaffirmed.

1896This court in Zintek v. Stimson Mill Co., 6 Wash. 178 ( 32 Pac. 997 ), held that, “ A yard boss of a lumber yard who has entire control of the yard with power to hire and discharge workmen, and to employ them under his Orders, is a vice principal, and not a fellow servant of the men who work under his control and superintendence.” And upon a second appeal in the same case, in 9 Wash. 395 ( 37 Pac. 340 ), this proposition was reaffirmed.

1896This court in Zintek v. Stimson Mill Co., 6 Wash. 178 ( 32 Pac. 997 ), held that, “ A yard boss of a lumber yard who has entire control of the yard with power to hire and discharge workmen, and to employ them under his Orders, is a vice principal, and not a fellow servant of the men who work under his control and superintendence.” And upon a second appeal in the same case, in 9 Wash. 395 ( 37 Pac. 340 ), this proposition was reaffirmed.

1896This court in Zintek v. Stimson Mill Co., 6 Wash. 178 ( 32 Pac. 997 ), held that, “ A yard boss of a lumber yard who has entire control of the yard with power to hire and discharge workmen, and to employ them under his Orders, is a vice principal, and not a fellow servant of the men who work under his control and superintendence.” And upon a second appeal in the same case, in 9 Wash. 395 ( 37 Pac. 340 ), this proposition was reaffirmed.