Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.92
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.075 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When a state officer, employee, or volunteer has been represented by the attorney general pursuant to RCW 4.92.070, and the body presiding over the action or proceeding has found that the officer, employee, or volunteer was acting within the scope of his or her official duties, and a judgment has been entered against the officer, employee, or volunteer pursuant to chapter 4.92 RCW or 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 et seq., thereafter the judgment creditor shall seek satisfaction only from the state, and the judgment shall not become a lien upon any property of such officer, employee, or volunteer.
[ 1989 c 413 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Cion Peralta v. T. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cion Peralta v. T. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “253 (f), its collective bargaining agreement holds prison doctors harmless for torts committed in the scope of their employment. Collective Bargaining Agreement between the State of Alaska and the Alaska Correctional Officers Association, Art.”
Taggart v. State, 822 P.2d 243 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.92.075. Because indemnity is available in these ways, we do not believe recognizing that a parole officer's negligent supervision may be the legal cause of the injuries suffered by the victims of parolees' violent crimes will have an undue chilling effect upon parole…”
Savage v. State, 899 P.2d 1270 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 2× “In addition, this notion that the function of qualified immunity of parole officers is to alleviate personal liability is questionable in the face of RCW 4.92.075. Under that provision, the State will satisfy a judgment entered against a state employee for acts or omissions…”
Garnica v. Washington Dep't of Corr., 965 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “02; RCW 4.92.075. The State of Washington is the real party in interest; therefore, Plaintiff cannot seek damages from any of the Defendants in their official capacity.”
Hardesty v. Stenchever, 917 P.2d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Under RCW 4.92.075, when the attorney general has represented a state employee and a court has entered a judgment against him or her, the judgment creditor must seek satisfaction only from the State, and the judgment cannot become a lien on the employee’s property.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. State, 993 P.2d 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “” 3 RCW 4.92.075 states that “[w]hen a state officer, employee, or volunteer has been represented by the attorney general pursuant to RCW 4.”
Florer v. Bales-Johnson, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (W.D. Wash. 2010). “See RCW 4.92.075. The Eleventh Amendment bars Mr.”
Jay Gerow, V Wa State Gambling Comm (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “And the term “personally” cannot refer only to the commissioners’ personal exposure because the statute also applies the term to the Gambling Commission itself.”
Chen v. D'Amico (W.D. Wash. 2025). “MSJ at 7-8 2 (citing RCW 4.92.075).) Defendants therefore assert that Plaintiffs’ claims against Ms.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.