Case law

WASHINGTON STATE BLDG. & CONST. v. Spellman

518 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 26, 1981

First, it clearly excludes federal waste or facilities from any action taken under a regional compact. … Finally, the Initiative will clearly have more than an incidental effect on interstate commerce.

In Re Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

257 F. Supp. 2d 1290 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 31, 2003

Clearly, a local school board does not need to demonstrate a compelling state interest every time it spends a taxpayer’s money in ways the taxpayer finds abhorrent. … Glickman thus established that, at least in that factual setting, the assessments were not speech restrictions, but were, instead, economic regulations.

Davis v. Strus

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 1, 2020

This determination was made in the context of evaluating Murray and 6 Kramer’s arguments related to qualified immunity. See id. at 36. … ” so the individual Riverside Defendants are 18 not entitled to qualified immunity.

Public Hospital District No. 1 v. Sullivan

806 F. Supp. 1478 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 23, 1992

. § 1395 -1395ccc, established a federally funded system of health insurance for the aged and disabled. … The statute clearly lists the factors that are to be considered and those factors have been incorporated into the Secretary’s regulation.

Cruz v. Ferry County

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 8, 2021

684, 686 (9th Cir. 1976) (reversing summary 1 judgment for the moving party, despite absence of opposition or statements of 2 genuine issues of fact by the opponent, because “the movant’s papers on their face 3 are clearly … Parties opposing summary judgment 8 must cite to “particular parts of materials in the record” establishing a genuine 9 dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); accord T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., v.

Paschall

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 14, 2025

Paschall to organize her Amended Complaints by causes of action, and 14 then clearly state the facts supporting each cause of action. ECF No. 16 at 6. … The doctrine 4 “is a well-established jurisdictional rule prohibiting federal courts from exercising 5 appellate review over final state court judgments.” Reusser v.

Friends of Moon Creek v. Diamond Lake Improvement Association Inc

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 10, 2020

Defendant Sharon Sorby appealed the December 1, 2016 Order 15 finding that she did not have qualified immunity and that her Notice did not comply 16 with state law. … On February 6, 2018, Division III of the Court of Appeals found that 17 Defendant Sharon Sorby did have qualified immunity and her Notice was sufficient 18 under state law, and remanded the case with instructions to

World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane

227 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 11, 2002

The record clearly established the city’s purpose in enacting the ordinance: to regulate the harmful secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. … Unlike World Wide Video , the definition of “adult retail use establishment” in the case at bar does not include a precise percentage (i.e., 10% or more) to delineate those businesses which would qualify as “adult retail

Pierce v. State of Washington

District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 20, 2024

Pierce refused to do so and told Sgt. 10 Westby, “it was clearly self-defense.” Id. at 6. According to Mr. Pierce, Sgt. 11 Westby then demanded the muzzleloader and the security camera hard drive. … Id. at 6-7. 8 He further contends the muzzleloader does not qualify as a “firearm” pursuant to 9 the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Supremacy Clause. Id. at 8. Mr.

Matthews v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

179 F. Supp. 2d 1209 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 23, 2001

In order to establish standing to bring and pursue a lawsuit, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) a causal connection between that injury and the defendant’s alleged conduct, and (3) a … any State, or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

United States v. Weekley

790 F. Supp. 223 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 3, 1992

Clearly, the Washington second degree burglary statute includes the generic elements specified in Taylor . … Taylor also establishes that this determination is categorical, and is made by looking at the statute, the charge, and the essential elements, as set forth in jury instructions.

Berg v. Esposito (In Re Oxborrow)

104 B.R. 356 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 6, 1989

A litigant qualifies as such an aggrieved person if the bankruptcy order appealed from diminishes the litigant’s property, increases his burdens, or impairs his rights. Id. … The Court here first finds that the factual tabulations of the percentages requesting and actually voting are not clearly erroneous and thus will not be disturbed.

United States v. 1020 Electronic Gambling MacHines

38 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 10, 1998

They thereby established] a fiduciary relationship and define[d] the contours of the United States’ fiduciary responsibilities.” … Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 74-75 , 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1133 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (Congress violated the Eleventh Amendment by including a clause abrogating the states’ immunity from suit in federal court).

Jackson v. Liedkie

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

Defendant is immune from suit on this issue 13 because prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for actions considered 14 “traditional functions of an advocate.” Kalina v. … Absent a showing 18 of facts clearly in violation of established law, immunity stands.

Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co.

222 F.R.D. 439 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 13, 2004

Here, a class of authorized workers clearly exists. Determining the identity of its members and providing them with adequate notice will not be easy. … This is because short-term employees, unlike long-term employees, rarely qualify to vote in union elections.

Edwards v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

954 F. Supp. 2d 1141 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 20, 2013

The Plan document is also clearly part of the parties’ contract. … This provision allows Defendant to deny enrollment to any otherwise qualified employee based upon the specific needs of a particular business unit.

Huelle v. Sauceda

District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 25, 2019

The 18 moving party bears the “burden of establishing the nonexistence of a ‘genuine 19 issue.’” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). … immunity.

Van Hoven v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 22, 2019

If only a portion or portions of the 21 material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also must clearly 1 margins). 2 (b) Testimony … This provision is not intended to modify 7 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that 8 provides for production without prior privilege review. 9 10.

Youmans

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 7, 2026

A party seeking a protective order has the burden of establishing good 8 cause in the form of good cause that would arise from public disclosure. Fierro 9 Cordero, 142 F.4th at 1207. … If only a portion or portions of the 17 material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also must clearly 18 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 19 margins

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n

551 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 23, 1982

If the conduct clearly threatens competition, however, the inference will be drawn irrespective of the defendant’s market power”. A.H. Cox, supra, 653 F.2d at 1308 . … As discussed earlier, under Forro, 673 F.2d at 1058 and Paddock Pool, 508 F.2d at 556 and 558, defendants’ conduct was not “clearly” anticompetitive.