Case law

Rand v. Dudek

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 9, 2025

impulsivity.”27 6 During a September 2022 Washington State Department of Social and 7 Health Services encounter, the social service specialist noted that Plaintiff spoke 8 clearly … Conclusion 6 Plaintiff establishes the ALJ erred.

Chapple v. Ganger

851 F. Supp. 1481 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 12, 1994

A credible link must be established between the reasoning and the conclusion. … An expert may be "qualified" to render an opinion, but the methodology may be suspect.

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COLVILLE v. Anderson

761 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 3, 2011

This was a traditional section 1983 suit for unlawful arrest, clearly distinguishable from our case. Id. at 516 n. 8. Here, state action was taken directly against Mr. … 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

Carby

District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 12, 2025

Id. 12 Additionally, she states these agencies do not have legal immunity unless this 13 Court confirms otherwise. … Additionally, if a plaintiff brings § 1983 claims against an 19 individual officer, it must exhibit two things. “(1) a federal right has been violated 20 and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the

Flores v. Bisignano

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 12, 2025

Standard 6 The ALJ must identify what symptom claims are being 7 discounted and clearly and convincingly explain the rationale for … Conclusion 5 Plaintiff establishes the ALJ erred.

United States v. Big Bend Transit Co.

42 F. Supp. 459 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 31, 1941

Consequently, no person could ever have qualified under plaintiff’s construction of the Act. The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save and not destroy. National Labor Relations Board v. … When the surveyor is mistaken as to the courses and distances, the Court must reconcile the conflicting calls so as to establish the true location. United Thacker Coal Co. v.

Blocktree Properties LLC v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County Washington

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 12, 2020

Id. at 40. 4 Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the district violated Washington ratemaking law, the 5 Due Process Clause of the Washington State Constitution, and the Privileges and 6 Immunities Clause of the Washington … When state law describes the nature of the benefit, 7 who is entitled to receive it, and under what circumstances they are entitled to 8 receive it, a qualified plaintiff is more likely to have a legitimate claim of

Brooks Jr v. Ballard

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 10, 2024

U.S.C. § 1983 9 Section 1983 requires a claimant to prove that (1) a person acting under 10 color of state law (2) committed an act that deprived the claimant of some right, 11 privilege, or immunity … To state a claim of disability discrimination 19 under Title II, a plaintiff must allege four elements: (1) he “is an individual with a 20 disability;” (2) he “is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the

Guercia v. AON Affinity Insurance Services Inc

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 15, 2025

Id. 1 Defendants further assert that even if these statutes qualified as per se CPA 2 violations, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a violation. Id. at 15-16. … Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants did not obtain 1 approval for their insurance rates or clearly identifying the rates in violation of 2 RCW 48.19.040 and RCW 48.18.180, and Defendants charged fees in violation

Pacific Aerospace & Electronics, Inc. v. Taylor

295 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 10, 2003

The party opposing summary judgment must go beyond the pleadings to designate specific facts establishing a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. … This same rationale clearly applies to Taylor.

State v. Horning Bros., LLC

339 F. Supp. 3d 1106 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 11, 2018

Accordingly, the Court finds the Ellerth - Faragher defense inapplicable and inappropriate where Horning Brothers' policy and actions were clearly insufficient to prevent and address the alleged sexual harassment. C. … Courts have previously found that whether a person qualifies as an owner, partner, corporate officer, or manager depends on whether the alleged harasser is of a high enough level to be considered as the employer's "alter

Lopez Carrillo v. Bennett

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

A decision under the first clause of (d)(1) is only 7 “‘contrary to’ clearly established federal law if it contradicts governing law in 8 Supreme Court cases, or if it reaches a different result than Supreme Court 9 … Accordingly, the Court proceeds to consider 7 whether any remaining claims were contrary to clearly established federal law. 8 III.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Global Horizons, Inc.

940 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 12, 2013

Nineteen specific requests for relief were included, including 1) requiring the Grower Defendants to “hire all interested individuals who are otherwise qualified to work,” 2) “providfing] sponsorship of visas and other immigrant … This is not to say that Congress must incant magic words in order to speak clearly.... [A court is to] consider context, ... as probative of whether Congress intended a particular provision to rank as jurisdictional.

Morris v. Kijakazi

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 3, 2023

established by medical evidence.’” … Remand: Further proceedings are required. 13 The record does not clearly establish that Plaintiff is disabled, and remand 14 for further proceedings is necessary to further develop the

Mackey v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 15, 2020

The 1 claimant has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of entitlement to 2 disability benefits. Rhinehart v. Finch, 438 F.2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1971). … Moon was qualified to assess, with 9 Plaintiff’s physical symptoms, which it does not appear Dr. Moon was qualified to 10 assess.

Mejia de Reyes v. Miller

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 11, 2024

MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARDS 4 Defendants have the burden of establishing that dismissal is appropriate.19 A 5 Rule 12(b)(1) motion seeks dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction … specified discretion relates to what factors— 4 humanitarian, family-unity, and other public-interest factors—the Attorney 5 General may consider when deciding whether a spouse or other listed family 6 member should qualify

Dannan v. City of Yakima

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 13, 2025

The statute clearly states to whom a whistleblower 14 complaint can be made.”). Further, Plaintiff is an employee of the City of Yakima, 15 not a state employee, and therefore does not qualify as a whistleblower. … Plaintiff’s assertion that Havens permits this 9 type of employer-employee communication to qualify as a “business transaction” 10 is misplaced. See ECF No. 21 at 17.

Nave v. Andrewjeski

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 10, 2022

“[A]n unreasonable application of” 15 clearly established federal law is one that is “objectively unreasonable, not merely 16 wrong; even clear error will not suffice.” … More 10 importantly, Nave does not show the state court adjudication of the claim was 11 contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Graham v. Kijazaki

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 25, 2022

It is important that these findings be made at all levels of adjudication to clearly 12 establish the basis for the determination or decision for the claimant and for a reviewing body including … Because the Court finds the 10 record does not clearly establish that Plaintiff is entitled to benefits, the Court 11 remands this case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 12 § 405

Industrial Welding Company Inc v. State of Washington

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 13, 2025

under color of state law (2) committed an act that deprived the 6 claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or 7 laws of the United States. … The government action must be “clearly arbitrary and 5 unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or 6 general welfare.” Kawaoka v.