Case law

Thomas L. Sluman v. State of Washington

418 P.3d 125 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 22, 2018

Nevertheless, the decisions do not bestow absolute immunity on the officers. In short, Thomas Sluman presents many cases that establish that Trooper Bart Olson violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … Davis, focused on whether Officer Danny Davis should receive qualified immunity.

Jones v. Department of Health

140 Wash. App. 476 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2007

of a clearly established constitutional right. … asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to survive summary judgment. 23 Jones claims the individual defendants violated his

Tyner v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶ 26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim because "[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one's supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the "law clearly proscribed the actions" they took.

Estate of Lee v. City of Spokane

101 Wash. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 2000

Police officers have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages for conduct that “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. … Entitlement to qualified immunity may be established, and was established here, as a matter of law. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 65 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992). By the plaintiffs’ own account, Mr.

Gausvik v. Abbey

107 P.3d 98 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2005

Qualified Immunity ¶ 66 A DSHS employee cannot be held personally liable for damages under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional *109 right. Robinson v. … After a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show a clearly established constitutional right existed that the defendant violated.

Waller v. State

64 Wash. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 1992

The Meyers court determined that the proper qualified immunity test was whether the conduct complained of "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … The qualified immunity question is whether the caseworkers' actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Meyers , at 1158.

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

13 P.3d 631 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2000

clearly established at the time it was taken." … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers' actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.

Lesley v. Department of Social & Health Services

83 Wash. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 26, 1996

CASEWORKER AND STATE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We next address whether Maurer is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … To receive qualified immunity under section 1983, a state official performing discretionary functions must show that the official’s conduct "[did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Estate of Lee Ex Rel. Lee v. Spokane

2 P.3d 979 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 2000

Police officers have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages for conduct that "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Id. … Entitlement to qualified immunity may be established, and was established here, as a matter of law. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wash.2d 34, 65 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992). By the plaintiffs' own account, Mr.

Edwards v. Department of Transportation

66 Wash. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 22, 1992

Qualified Immunity. … On the other hand, if the law was clearly established and the conduct of the official is violative of an individual's statutory or constitutional rights the immunity defense should fail. Harlow v.

Mark v. Williams

45 Wash. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 27, 1986

The test enunciated in Harlow has effectively eliminated the subjective component of qualified immunity, establishing a purely objective standard. 4 The defendants had a right to believe they could operate as they did since … We note that this qualified immunity created in Bivens, unlike the qualified immunity enunciated later in Harlow for § 1983 actions, is based on both a good faith (subjective) and reasonableness (objective) test.

Jones v. State

166 P.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 2007

of a clearly established constitutional right. … ] Once the defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to survive summary judgment. [23] Jones claims the individual defendants

Tortes v. King County

84 P.3d 252 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 2003

These individual public officials are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is preferred that a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment. [19] The central purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from interference with

Dang v. Ehredt

95 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1999

were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. 12 The standard is one of objective legal reasonableness, that is, whether the officer acted reasonably under settled law under the … Dang’s assertion that the issue of qualified immunity merges with the issue of probable cause, so that a finding that an officer lacked probable cause to arrest is dispositive of the issue of qualified immunity. 12 Anderson

White v. State

78 Wash. App. 824 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 12, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defense The State argues that if White engaged in protected speech, Blanchard and Harrah are immune from liability under the defense of qualified immunity. … Once the affirmative defense of qualified immunity has been raised in a case on summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of the alleged "clearly established” constitutional right.

City of Prosser v. Teamsters Union Local 839

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 19, 2022

Martin, 195 F.3d 1208, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that the relevant law was “clearly established” in the post-October 1994 time frame for purposes of defendant’s claim of qualified immunity); cf. Sampson v. … and by officials acting under color of state law. 7 Article I, section 12 states: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities

Wilson v. State

84 Wash. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1996

A plaintiff seeking to rebut a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity must demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct interfered with a clearly established constitutional right. White, 78 Wn. App. at 837 . … Thus, Wilson has failed to show that defendants interfered with his "clearly established” constitutional free speech rights. Consequently, the individual defendants may claim the defense of qualified immunity.

Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First *561 Amendment claim because “[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one’s supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the “law clearly proscribed the actions” they took.

Michael Segaline v. State Of Wa, Dept. Of L & I

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2017

If Alan Croft has qualified immunity as to the trespass notice he is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions that flowed from it. ... Absent a clearly established right, Mr. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability and money damages so long as "'their conduct does not violate clearly established ...

Seaman v. Karr

114 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing *681 violates that right.