Case law

Grenning v. Key

District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 26, 2023

Qualified Immunity 18 Plaintiff contends Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 19 No. 37 at 37. … Thus, even if 7 Defendants had violated Plaintiff’s rights, they would be entitled to qualified 8 immunity. 9 CONCLUSION

Mildes v. Shriners Hospitals For Children

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 26, 2024

5 For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions 6 of the immune … such individual holds or desires. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). 1 immunocompromised and substantially limit one or more major life activities, 2 including the operation of major bodily functions, such as functions of the immune

Estate of Torres v. Kennewick School District No 17

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2024

Qualified Immunity 7 “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold 8 public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the … clearly established at the time of the alleged 15 misconduct.”

Kent Ex Rel. Gillespie v. Derwinski

790 F. Supp. 1032 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 19, 1991

DISCUSSION OF LAW Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 791 requires that a plaintiff prove three elements in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination: (1) plaintiff is a handi *1039 capped person within the meaning of … Otherwise Qualified The Ninth Circuit has adopted a two prong test to determine if a handicapped person is “otherwise qualified” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 791 : (1) Is the worker presently qualified to perform the

Bledsoe v. Ferry County

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 30, 2020

In 2 resolving qualified immunity claims, the court must decide (1) whether the 3 defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the identified 4 constitutional right was clearly established at … Bledsoe’s constitutional rights that were clearly established by law. 12 Therefore, the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Eslick v. State of Washington

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 9, 2022

City Defendants argue Officer Perez is 18 entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 because Plaintiff’s arrest was lawful. 19 ECF No. 44 at 5–7. … The Court need not reach the 8 issue of qualified immunity. 9 B. 42 U.S.C. § 1985 10 Plaintiff alleges Officers

TorchStar Corp v. Hyatech Inc

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 6, 2023

conducts including falsely accusing Defendant of copyright infringement on 12 Plaintiff’s marketing materials, while knowing that Plaintiff’s marketing materials 13 could not satisfy the minimum degree of creativity to qualify … That said, to the extent Defendant is seeking liability and damages 13 because Plaintiff filed its lawsuit, the Court find that questions of fact exist 14 whether certain claims that are being asserted by Plaintiff qualify

City of Moses Lake v. United States

430 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 4, 2006

11 That does not qualify as a “continuing tort.” If anything, it represents a potentially new tort claim which has yet to accrue because there has been no injury as yet. … As stated in the court’s previous order, if and when one of the wells exceeds the MCL for TCE, Moses Lake will have a cause of action because clearly then a health risk will exist.

Dukich v. Blair

3 F.2d 302 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 19, 1925

Such a method is neither suitable nor appropriate to the nature of such a ease, and is clearly not sanctioned by established usages or customs, either in this or in the mother country. … The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.

Garey v. Washington State University

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 18, 2023

The State bears the burden of establishing immunity. ITSI TV 13 Prods., Inc. v. Agric. … immunity 5 doctrine and the public immunity doctrine are different.

Ingram v. Keyes

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 16, 2020

Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). 3 “Will establishes that the State and the arms of the State, which have traditionally 4 enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under section 1983 … Therefore, the Department 7 of Corrections is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and does not qualify 8 as a “person” under Section 1983.

Butler v. Yakima County

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2025

To 2 establish liability pursuant to § 1983, Plaintiff must set forth facts demonstrating 3 how each Defendant caused or personally participated in causing a deprivation of 4 Plaintiff's protected rights. … Director 11 Welch’s response to Plaintiff’s grievance makes it perfectly clear that the housing 12 change was to focus on restoring the safety and security of the facility. 13 Moreover, Sergeant John Staff has qualified

Carby v. DaVita Dialysis

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2020

[an] 3 employee without a disability with a reasonable accommodation because that duty 4 only applies to qualified ... employees with disabilities. … Instead, the employer must establish that he 4 had a legitimate reason to deny the employee reinstatement by firing her. Sanders 5 v.

Dave v. Rails to Trails Conservancy

863 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 28, 1994

. '§ 1241, was designed to establish recreational trails in urban areas as well as “within scenic areas and along historic travel routes of the Nation.” 16 U.S.C. § 1241 (a). … If a State, political subdivision, or qualified private organization is prepared to assume full responsibility for management of such rights-of-way and for any legal liability arising out of such transfer or use, and for

Okert v. United States

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 28, 2024

This means a plaintiff must show the 11 condition is (1) known, (2) dangerous, (3) artificial, and (4) latent to establish that 12 the immunity exception applies to the defendant. … Defendant also argues that “[j]urisdictional dismissals are routinely 9 granted in FTCA cases when, as here, the plaintiff fails to establish that the claim 10 falls within [the FTCA’s] waiver of sovereign immunity.”

Hicks v. Dotson

73 F. Supp. 3d 1296 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 22, 2014

To establish a § 1983 claim, a claimant must prove “(1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected … Court therefore turns its attention to whether Defendant committed an act or participated in an act that deprived Plaintiff of some right, privilege, or immunity.

Colville Confederated Tribes v. Somday

96 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 5, 2000

The PBGC concluded the tribe pension plan did not qualify for exempt status. … establishes otherwise.

Manycolors

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2026

immunity. … There are three exceptions to this 13 immunity: (1) Congress has abrogated immunity within a federal statute; (2) the 14 State has waived immunity and allowed individuals to sue it pursuant to specific 15 state statutes

Visaya v. True

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 26, 2025

Defendants Crouch and LaCourse are entitled to 14 quasi-judicial immunity because their actions clearly fall within the gamut of tasks 15 functionally comparable to those performed by judges: as noted above, judges, … Rather, a plaintiff 26 must establish that the municipality had a policy, custom, or practice that 27 motivated the constitutional violation alleged. Gravelet-Blondin v.

Ramirez v. Olympic Health Management Systems, Inc.

610 F. Supp. 2d 1266 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 17, 2009

Geddes’ testimony will be helpful to the jury because her testimony speaks clearly and directly to the tangible injury Plaintiff suffered due to Defendant’s allegedly discriminatory treatment — this helps Plaintiff establish … To establish a prima facie discrimination case, a plaintiff must show that 1) she belongs to a protected class; 2) she was qualified for the position; 3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) similarly situated