Case law

Hamilton v. O'Malley

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 14, 2024

The Court held: 4 Taking the first clause (“any final decision”) first, we note that the phrase “final decision” clearly denotes some kind of terminal event,8 5 and Congress’ use … . 1 if, despite all due diligence, a plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing 2 on the existence of his claim.”45 “Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling 3 bears the burden of establishing

Andritz v. Perkins

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

Examples of evidence which may establish factual 5 innocence include credible declarations of guilt by another, see Sawyer v. … Petitioner has failed to clearly identify a 12 federal law that has been violated. A district court reviewing a state sentence 13 under § 2254 is not empowered to review issues of state law.

Burkey v. Holbrook

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

an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or 1 that its determination of the facts was objectively unreasonable in light of the 2 evidence. … The Court is aware of no decisions by the United 13 States Supreme Court clearly establishing such a rule. See Missouri v.

City of Moses Lake v. United States

458 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 16, 2006

As discussed above with regard to “operator” liability, there is clearly a genuine issue of material fact whether Lockheed itself owned or possessed waste. This particular issue turns on the credibility of Mr. … If it is established that Lockheed did have the requisite degree of “control” over the “disposal” of TCE at the MAMS facility, it is liable and it is not further necessary for Moses Lake to establish that TCE at the Site

Kniffen v. East Wenatchee Water District

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 7, 2025

“Previously, the courts have set the 18 remittitur amount where objective evidence clearly identified the correct damages 19 amount.” Id. … “To 5 prevail on [his] discrimination claims under both the ADA and WLAD, the 6 Plaintiff is required to establish: (1) that [he] was disabled under the ADA and 7 WLAD; ‘(2) that [he] was a qualified individual with

Rodriguez v. Kincheloe

763 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 4, 1991

Therefore, qualified female employees may compete for many job classifications at all the facilities unless the Washington Human Rights Commission approves the position for a gender specific BFOQ. … The record clearly indicates that there are substantial safeguards to prevent any more than the type of observations upheld in Michenfelder and Grummett , discussed supra.

Fox v. County of Benton

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 8, 2023

portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 11 claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 12 which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 13 immune … The 19 Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 20 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly 1 baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

Agbor-Baiyee v. Washington State Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 16, 2022

Summary judgment will thus be granted 11 “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of 12 an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the 13 … The Court need not reach Defendants’ 18 alternative theory of dismissal premised on qualified immunity. 19 B.

Hill

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2026

Maddox Declaration 4 Plaintiffs argue that the Maddox Declaration does not establish that Bernard 5 Maddox (“Mr. … Mr. 2 Maddox is qualified to testify on the relevant matters as an expert. 3 Plaintiffs contention that Mr.

RS Titan, LLC v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; Terry Pyle; Larry Schaapman; Judy Wilson; Nelson Cox; Tom Flint

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 8, 2026

That may support a breach of contract 18 claim, but it is not a clearly vested entitlement to immediate delivery or reservation 19 of 34.4 MVA. … That language may support a breach of contract claim, but it does not 20 establish the kind of fixed, accrued entitlement at issue in Caritas.

Brewer v. Burns

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 21, 2024

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, FEDERAL 19 WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ESTABLISH … Plaintiff’s claims are factually frivolous, as 9 the alleged facts are “clearly baseless.” See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

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

328 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 24, 2018

Plaintiffs also note that they have clearly not consented to the termination and thus, the third clause of the regulation is not at issue. See id. at 19 . … Count III: Establishment Clause Claim Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' establishment clause claim. ECF No. 27 at 28.

Spokane Arcades, Inc. v. Ray

449 F. Supp. 1145 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 6, 1978

But the Court in Broadrick did qualify its broad standing requirements, noting that where conduct and not speech is regulated, statutory overbreadth must be not only real but substantial. … The plaintiffs’ businesses are the type of establishments that the statute purports to regulate.

In Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation

894 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 7, 1995

This data renders all of the plaintiffs’ causal theories moot and clearly shows that any further inquiry regarding these hypotheses would be pointless. … Bell is not qualified as a fisheries biologist but only as a fisheries engineer. Affidavit of Counsel (Ct.Rec. 497) at 2. Based upon this premise, counsel asserts Dr.

Community Ass'n for Restoration of the Environment, Inc. v. George & Margaret LLC

954 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 21, 2013

Under the citizen suit provision of RCRA, CARE must establish that Defendants are contributing to the “handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent … “[W]hen two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” Morton v.

Covert v. Herrington

667 F. Supp. 730 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 15, 1987

Plaintiffs distinguish Burley on the basis that “the description of ‘routine uses’ in the Privacy Act Notice of DEA specifically, clearly and blatantly authorized the disclosure” of the investigative reports. … Miller argued that the parole officer’s disclosures violated the Privacy Act, 5 but the court found otherwise, holding that the release of the records for a criminal investigation qualified as a “routine use” under Justice

Gould

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

The party appealing the ALJ’s decision generally 19 bears the burden of establishing that it was harmed. Shinseki v. … G.’s testimony but failed to 13 address that she qualified her ability to perform nearly every activity listed as 14 limited by her impairments. Tr. 50-53.

Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States

366 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 25, 2005

Also, when that lawsuit was filed, the parties to the present lawsuit had notice of plaintiffs lien, which qualifies as constructive notice sufficient to impose an attorney’s lien under Idaho law. … Finally, intervenors conclude that their claims are not barred by sovereign immunity and the Tucker Act is inapplicable to the interve-nors’ claim as sureties.

Avila v. Key

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

“Clearly established Federal law” is the 24 “governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time 25 the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. … established federal law.

Brantley v. Healing Lodge of the Seven Nations

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 20, 2020

Dudley, 993 P.2d 901, 911 (Wash. 2000), as amended (Feb. 22, 2000) (“[W]e 10 find the plaintiff has properly stated a cause of action for the tort of wrongful 11 discharge based on the clearly articulated public policy … To establish such a claim, Plaintiffs must first establish a 14 prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by showing (1) they were members of 15 a protected class, (2) they were qualified for and performed their job