Case law

Keenan v. Allan

889 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 12, 1995

Grant County Resolution No. 93-5CC clearly meets the intent of the Act. … Schwinden, 862 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir.1988) ("To establish a violation of substantive due process, the plaintiff[] must prove that the government’s action was 'clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation

United States v. Newmont USA Ltd.

504 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2007

I). 1 No Congressional action was taken to establish this Reservation. … Title is important, but it is merely one factor in establishing CERCLA ownership liability in a fiduciary.

Mallgren

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 21, 2025

The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on 2 an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly 3 baseless. … The Complaint thus fails to provide any factual basis 10 upon which a claim could rely. 11 Second, the Complaint fails to establish any logical connection between the

Wallace Sr et ux v. Home Depot USA Inc

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 15, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the 13 material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also 14 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 15 … This provision is not intended to modify 6 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that 7 provides for production without prior privilege review.

Gonzalez v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 28, 2021

If only a 13 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing 14 party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 15 appropriate markings in the margins … This provision is not intended to modify 9 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that 10

Weatherhead v. United States

112 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 10, 2000

Upon release of the Extradition Letter, the issue certified by the Supreme Court on appeal was clearly moot. … waived the government’s immunity from interest when it enacted Title VII.

Almhana v. Trestle Creek LLC

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 30, 2021

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

Paul v. State of Washington

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 6, 2020

Plaintiff 16 seeks partial summary judgment on Defendants’ affirmative defense of qualified 17 immunity and liability under the Fourth Amendment. ECF No. 30. … immunity but fails to substantively address this affirmative defense.

Van Steenwyk v. Interamerican Management Consulting Corp.

834 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 23, 1993

Clifton Barton, who clearly identified himself as an IMCC official. Id. at 2. In his letter of July 21, 1992, Mr. … The plaintiffs do not seek to establish general jurisdiction over the defendant.

Schuller v. Eastern Washington University

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 27, 2025

Schuller’s procedural due process claim, and assert Ms. 18 Hickey is entitled to qualified immunity. They have not moved for summary 19 judgment on Ms. … Hickey is entitled to 19 qualified immunity.

United States v. Hegge

636 F. Supp. 119 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 1, 1986

Hegge’s alleged and established criminal activity involving at least two murders. Evidence of those murders and the other criminal activity of Mr. … The reasons for this rule are clearly set forth in Gannett.

Khan v. Bechtel National Inc

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 13, 2020

If only a portion or portions of the 7 material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also must clearly 8 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 9 … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 20 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that provides 21

HB Development, LLC v. Western Pacific Mutual Insurance

86 F. Supp. 3d 1164 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 6, 2015

Additionally, the policy clearly states that it provides only claims-made coverage, and what that means. … Furthermore, the policy explicitly defines a qualifying “claim” as one made for damages. Notification of an occurrence or *1180 offense alone, although required by the policy, does not trigger coverage on its own.

Ochoa v. Campbell

266 F. Supp. 3d 1237 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 31, 2017

Communication and cooperation between federal, state, and local offi *1254 cials on immigration matters is clearly permissible, but the role state and local officials can take in such matters is limited. … Defendants are not authorized or qualified to perform the duties of immigration officers. See discussion re state and local official’s immigration authority, supra section V.B.4.a & b.

National Licensing Ass'n v. Inland Joseph Fruit Co.

361 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 15, 2004

Additionally, the burden of establishing standing remains at all times with the party invoking federal jurisdiction. Warth v. … In Calgon, the court analyzed whether the plaintiffs exclusive license was in fact qualified as an assignment by transferring all substantial rights in the patent.

Killinger v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 22, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the 1 material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also 2 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 3 appropriate … This provision 3 is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery 4 order or Order that provides for production without prior privilege review.

Planned Parenthood of Greater Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

337 F. Supp. 3d 976 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 31, 2018

The program must clearly communicate that teen sex is a risk behavior for pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, as well as sociological, economic, and other related risks. Id. … The Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to establish that they would be unable to fairly compete for the grant.

Busby v. Trans Union LLC

District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 14, 2021

If only a 15 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing 16 party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 17 markings in the margins … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 9 may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that provides for production 10 without prior privilege review.

Dam v. General Electric Co.

144 F. Supp. 175 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 27, 1956

The others clearly appear to involve genuine issues of material fact and will not, therefore, be considered. … kind of trial they would have in-the state court, and any law of the state-which would substantially affect the outcome of the lawsuit must be regarded-as substantive and be followed by the federal court. 4 It is a well-established

In re Cole

37 F. Supp. 860 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 25, 1941

Certainly such testimony was material and the witness was qualified. The only question, of course, would be as to the weight, if any, that the court should accord to same. … The evidence submitted to the court established the following: The real estate in question is an orchard tract of 8.8 acres in Douglas County three miles from Wenatchee.