Legal Opinion

Hertog v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1999No. 66136-7PublishedCited by 243 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMadsen, J.

— In Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 822 P.2d 243 (1992), we held that a state parole officer has a duty to protect others from reasonably foreseeable danger resulting from the dangerous propensities of parolees. At issue in this case is whether a similar duty exists on the part of a city probation counselor and a county pretrial release counselor. We conclude that a duty exists in each situation, and that material issues of fact preclude summary judgment. Further, materials sought by plaintiff concerning treatment for sexual deviancy and substance *269abuse are discoverable under the facts…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Petersen v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Taggart v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1998

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by243 opinions

  1. HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Ranger Insurance v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd.Washington Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2000

238 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API