Case law

Grenning v. Stout

144 F. Supp. 3d 1241 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 3, 2015

As the Magistrate Judge correctly held, prison officials carrying out their duties are immune from suit unless their behavior contravenes “clearly established federal law.” Torres v. … claims was clearly established at the time Defendants’ relevant actions occurred.

Maynard v. Ferno-Washington, Inc.

22 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 2, 1998

There is clearly an issue of fact over whether Marta Maynard witnessed a similar accident shortly before her own accident. … The court finds that Ferno-Wash-ington has not established that Mr. Fries is not qualified as an expert. Mr.

Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.

632 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 19, 2009

Congress can waive a tribe’s immunity from suit, but that waiver must be clearly expressed. Congress has plenary power over tribal sovereignty, but must make clear its intent to limit that sovereignty. … However, such a conclusion is of dubious validity inasmuch as a tribe’s disposal activities would clearly be subject to regulation under RCRA as well as SDWA and the CWA.

Schenck v. Edwards

921 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 1, 1996

Pease and Officers Whalen and Pierce are entitled to qualified immunity from damages. … Qualified immunity should be granted if the right asserted was not “clearly established” or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful. Romero v.

United States v. Manning

434 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 12, 2006

generated by the Navy that qualify as “mixed waste” under the CPA, until Hanford attains State-established cleanup levels for AEA materials (Section 4(6)); (3) bar the import of “mixed waste” to Hanford for a significant … Sovereign Immunity Because the Supremacy Clause immunizes the activities of the Federal government from State interference, direct state regulation of federal facilities is allowed only to the extent that Congress has clearly

Marin v. United States

814 F. Supp. 1468 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 3, 1992

The Taggart court, at page 216, 822 P.2d 243 , did hold that, in limited circumstances, state officers may be entitled to qualified immunity. … As such, the Agents and the Government are not entitled to qualified immunity under Washington State Law.

Bennett v. Hicks

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 23, 2022

The Court grants the present motion to address qualified immunity. 7 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless 8 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … That right has been clearly established 19 since the Supreme Court’s decision in Farmer v. Brennan in 1994 ….

Busey v. Richland School District

151 F. Supp. 3d 1135 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 22, 2015

Qualified Immunity The individual Board members assert that, even if the Court finds Mr. Key’s interview was deficient for purposes of due process, they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … In the context of section 1983 claims, qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Courtney v. Goltz

868 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 17, 2012

The Courtneys’ efforts to establish a competing ferry service have taken several forms. … With the history and purpose of the amendments thus established, the Court proceeded to consider whether the Louisiana statute violated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Spokane Tribe of Indians v. State of Wash.

790 F. Supp. 1057 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 31, 1991

The State raises sovereign immunity, established by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, as a bar to this action. … It appears that sovereign immunity must be overcome by a source independent of 28 U.S.C. § 1362 in order for federal court jurisdiction to be established.

United States v. City of Spokane

734 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 31, 1989

Although there is no simple test for ascertaining whether an institution is so closely related to governmental activity as to become a tax-immune instrumentality, the Red Cross is clearly such an instrumentality. … Id. at 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. at 355-56 . (1) The court finds that granting tax immunity to a function of the Red Cross will not establish a new principle of law in light of Department of Employment v.

Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee

214 F. Supp. 2d 1103 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 10, 2002

On a motion for summary judgment based on immunity, where the parties do not dispute the material issues of fact, a district court may establish as a matter of law that immunity protects a defendant from damages liability … Since absolute immunity applies to all of the claims against him in the § 1983 action, the defenses of collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel, qualified immunity and proximate cause do not require address in this context.

Bultena v. Wash. State Dep't of Agric.

319 F. Supp. 3d 1215 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 30, 2018

The parties agree that the Department, a state agency, is immune from suit for damages under the FMLA. However the Department does not assert immunity from the WLFA and argues the claim on the merits. … Because the Department does not raise immunity, the Court will assess the WFLA claim on the merits.

Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation v. Lowry

968 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 19, 1996

Congress clearly intended to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the States pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(7)(A)(i). Id. at ---, 116 S.Ct. at 1124 . … The Washington State Lottery is clearly not Class I gaming activity under IGRA’s definition.

Henry v. Shah

District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 23, 2024

Defendants call them “the Pickering 1 to the clearly-established-right portion of their qualified immunity analysis in their 2 Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. at 3. … On the 15 contrary, Defendants’ arguments at the clearly established step of the qualified 16 immunity test were solely focused on the second Pickering factor—whether 17 Ms.

Ooh! Media LLC v. Spokane Transit Authority

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

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long 5 as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 6 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even so, the Court finds that Defendant Meyer is 1 entitled to qualified immunity because the First Amendment right asserted by 2 Defendants was not clearly established.

SATNAM S. RANDHAWA v. PHILIP MARKER and MARK FOSTER

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 14, 2026

The Court’s 25 qualified immunity analysis may proceed in any order. … Moreover, 15 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established 16 that a one-time employment decision based on suspected food theft would amount 17 to a constitutional violation.

Human Rights Defense Center v. Uttecht

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 5, 2024

ECF No. 85 at 7. 10 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless 11 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly 9 established constitutional right – when the officer should have known he was 10 violating the Constitution – does he forfeit qualified immunity.”

Richey v. Aiyeku

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 19, 2021

The district court may analyze either prong of qualified immunity first. … not clearly established as retaliatory. 8 Therefore, the second prong of qualified immunity, a violation of clearly 9 established law, has not been met, and Defendants are entitled to qualified 10 immunity in the

Cheesman v. Ellensburg, City of

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 2, 2020

Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. 17 Under the qualified immunity analysis, a “clearly established right” is one 18 that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable officer would have understood that … It is not clearly 4 established that a parent has a constitutional right to obtain a second medical 5 examination, nor is it clearly established that Defendant Week should have 6 prevented CPS from taking their children