Dunning v. Paccerelli

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that questions of fact existed as to the good faith of caseworkers’ reports of child abuser names to the state’s registry, precluding summary judgment
• holding that those who negligently “report[] child abuse” are nevertheless 7 immune from civil liability under RCW 26.44.060 (emphasis omitted)
• recognizing a distinction between reporting and investigating allegations of child sexual abuse
• construing similar statutes requiring “reasonable cause to believe” before reporting mandated and “good faith” immunity provision
• stating that RCW 26.44.030(1) (\is framed in terms of reasonableness\)
• “Consent judgments ‘are not ... ordinarily given issue preclusion effect.’ The reason is that ‘the parties could settle for myriad reasons not related to the resolution of the issues they are litigating.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).