Legal Opinion
Wilcox v. Batiste
District Court, E.D. Washington
Decided December 21, 2018No. : 2:17-CV-122-RMPPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
As a part of its argument that the state is the real party at interest, Chief Batiste argues that he did not act ultra vires. ECF No. 35 at 8. In response, Ms. Wilcox refers the Court to the WSP's Public Records Exemption Codes List, ECF No. 3-10, arguing that Chief Batiste violated redaction policies by disclosing PTCRs with personal information on them. ECF No. 56 at 12. In reply, Chief Batiste argues that there are separate codes governing redaction of DOL records and PTCRs, respectively. ECF No. 64 at 7.
A state officer acts ultra vires only when the officer acts without any authority…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Pearson v. CallahanSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Mullenix v. LunaSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Patricia Scott Anderson v. Air West, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Ashcroft v. al-KiddSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Nisi v. BrownDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 2019
- Acosta v. Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019
- American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Lacey Sullivan and Daniel Sullivan, a married couple, individually, and as natural guardians to Infant Sullivan, a minor and Ryan YatesDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2026
- American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. SullivanDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2025
- Blumenkron v. Multnomah CountyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2021
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.