Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012055.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Full Text
1,771 charsanalysis turned on the elements of article III standing under Lujan and the additional elements for parens patriae standing under Snapp. These doctrines apply to the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts and are not part of our analysis of the Washington attorney general’s statutory authority to maintain actions in matters of public concern. The respondents cannot assert issue preclusion here where the issues are not identical. Hanson, 121 Wn.2d at 562. 14 Issue preclusion does not apply here. 14 Moreover, as explained above, this case involves matters of public concern. Applying collateral estoppel here would work an injustice as it would prevent the attorney general from pursuing these matters of public concern that were dismissed from federal court for reasons 27 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. State v. City of Sunnyside et al. No. 101205-5 The respondents are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that the attorney general lacks authority to maintain this action under either their theory of statutory interpretation or issue preclusion. We reverse. II. Qualified Immunity The individual respondents also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity for the claim that alleges violations of procedural due process under the United States Constitution and therefore summary judgment is proper at least as to the individual respondents. 15 We disagree that summary judgment should be granted on this basis, given the genuine disputes of material fact about whether the City’s police officers forced tenants to leave their homes through extrajudicial evictions in violation of clearly established law. Section 1983 provides an avenue to redress injuries by the actions of the