Case law

Staats v. Brown

139 Wash. 2d 757 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

clearly established at the time of the act. … Qualified immunity is not available to Officer Brown for the alleged search as the Fourth Amendment right to be free of a warrantless residential search in the circumstances as alleged is clearly established. C.

Lockner v. Pierce Cnty.

190 Wash. 2d 526 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2018

App. 177 , 184, 6 P.3d 1191 (2000), aff'd , 144 Wash.2d 612 , 30 P.3d 460 (2001). ¶ 13 To qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was (1) open to members of the public … Clearly, mixed public and other uses do not defeat immunity since the legislature amended RCW 4.24.210 to include land used for hydroelectric *533 power plants.

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

980 P.2d 742 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

No qualified immunity for violation of a clearly established right. Harwick's threshold defense is qualified immunity. [1] Harlow v. … Clearly, qualified immunity is appropriate only where assertions of fact by the plaintiff do not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation.

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

138 Wash. 2d 506 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

Benjamin’s termination the law was not clearly established that the termination constituted state action, nor was the law clearly established that Dr. … Consequently, we need not address the second step in qualified immunity analysis—determining whether *528 the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time the dispute arose.

Robinson v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 34 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

constitutional or statutory rights; such persons are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under section 1983 if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law. … Qualified immunity from suit must be granted when the law or right allegedly violated is not clearly established. Conner v. Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 , 1492 (9th Cir. 1990).

Staats v. Brown

991 P.2d 615 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 24, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review Claims of qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 must fail if the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the act. Harlow v. … Consequently, he is qualifiedly immune for claims under state law. The test for qualified immunity under federal law is an objective one, measured by reference to clearly established law. See Harlow v.

Hertog v. City of Seattle

138 Wash. 2d 265 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

State, 127 Wn.2d 434 , 899 P.2d 1270 (1995), that the qualified personal immunity for parole officers recognized in Taggart does not extend to the State. … If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not.

Bender v. City of Seattle

99 Wash. 2d 582 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 1983

We believe a qualified privilege will adequately protect police officers in releasing information to the public and press. It is then the plaintiff's burden to establish an abuse of that qualified privilege to recover. … Seattle Times, supra at 492 n.5, proof of an abuse of a qualified privilege must be established by clear and convincing evidence, not simply by a preponderance of the evidence.

Savage v. State

127 Wash. 2d 434 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1995

I Qualified Personal Immunity In Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992), we held that parole officers have qualified immunity for allegedly negligent supervision of parolees who harm third parties. … agent enjoys qualified personal immunity.

Babcock v. State

116 Wash. 2d 596 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1991

Lack of malice is necessary but not sufficient to establish qualified i immunity under Guffey . Caseworkers cannot claim even a qualified immunity when they fail to follow statutory procedures. … We do not think that ex parte orders can establish quasi-judicial immunity for those carrying them out. Ex parte orders do not offer sufficient procedural protections to warrant the establishment of absolute immunity.

Jones v. State

170 Wash. 2d 338 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

Whether Wene and Jeppesen are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 for violating Jones’ right to due process ¶17 When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a § 1983 suit and raises a qualified … Qualified immunity ¶27 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly

Bosteder v. City of Renton

117 P.3d 316 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2005

This suggests the law was clearly established at the time the current warrant was sought and the defendants would not have been entitled to qualified immunity. … However, I disagree the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they did not violate a "clearly established" right.

Guffey v. State

103 Wash. 2d 144 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1984

Secondly, we establish an additional narrow immunity defense under specified conditions. Finally, we determine whether the trooper in the present case should be protected by this immunity. … A review of the circumstances under which such qualified immunity has been found thus far in Washington is essential to an understanding of the qualified immunity established today.

Bishop v. Miche

137 Wash. 2d 518 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1999

We said in Taggart that this duty arises only when it has been shown that the parole officer lacks absolute and qualified immunity for the actions claimed to be negligent. *525 However, we later held that qualified personal … Thus, following Savage , a finding of qualified personal immunity on the part of the individual officer does not end the inquiry.

HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of Seattle

979 P.2d 400 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not. … Nor, as noted, is the City entitled to the benefit of any qualified personal immunity enjoyed by the probation counselor.

Bosteder v. City of Renton

155 Wash. 2d 18 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2005

However, I disagree the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they did not violate a “clearly established” right. … Officials may claim an affirmative defense of qualified immunity, but that defense “must fail if the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the act.” Staats v.

Cregan v. Fourth Memorial Church

175 Wash. 2d 279 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2012

If the property is not open to the public, then immunity does not attach. ¶11 Landowners who open their lands to the public may be able to restrict some access and still qualify for recreational use immunity, but the line … To qualify for immunity under the statute, however, a landowner cannot restrict access by discriminating against the user based on personal traits. 5 When an owner excludes people in this way — that is, has a selective invitation

Furfaro v. City of Seattle

144 Wash. 2d 363 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2001

The Court of Appeals also recognized, in its discussion of the qualified immunity issue, that the warrant requirement was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity is appropriate in this case precisely because the right violated was not clearly established: “The contours of the right to perform a nude stage dance without fear of warrantless arrest are not clearly

Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

Absolute immunity is not available for administrative acts of local officials. Creekside Assocs., Inc. v. Wood Dale, 684 F. Supp. 201, 205-06 (N.D. Ill. 1988). However, qualified immunity has been found to exist. … The determination of whether a particular right is "clearly established" is a complex one. Substantive due process claims have previously been found to be "well established" by the federal court. Bateson v.

Bishop v. Miche

973 P.2d 465 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1999

We said in Taggart that this duty arises only when it has been shown that the parole officer lacks absolute and qualified immunity for the actions claimed to be negligent. … Thus, following Savage , a finding of qualified personal immunity on the part of the individual officer does not end the inquiry.