Legal Opinion

Locke v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 13, 2007No. Nos. 79222-4; 79381-6PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1

Owens, J.

In these consolidated cases, respondents Kevin Locke and Gary Lindell’s personal representative sued the city of Seattle (City) for injuries sustained during *478Locke’s and Lindell’s employment. In both cases, the City challenges the “right to sue” provision in the Washington Law Enforcement Officers’ and Fire Fighters’ Retirement System Act (LEOFF), chapter 4Í.26 RCW. See RCW 41.26.281 (“right to sue” provision). The City contends that LEOFF’s “right to sue” provision violates sovereign immunity and the privileges and immunities clause in article I, section 12 of the Washington…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. J & B Development Co. v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Beal v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Berrocal v. FernandezWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Beal for Martinez v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Berrocal v. FernandezWashington Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Ranger Insurance v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Michael v. Mosquera-LacyWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Brundridge v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Brundridge v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2008

25 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