Case law

Musso-Escude v. Edwards

101 Wash. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2000

is alleged. 22 Qualified immunity protects an official only for those acts done in good faith. 23 In general, executive branch officials are afforded qualified immunity. 24 *569 Where a state actor claims immunity against … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or

Musso-Escude v. Edwards

4 P.3d 151 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2000

is alleged. [22] Qualified immunity protects an official only for those acts done in *156 good faith. [23] In general, executive branch officials are afforded qualified immunity. [24] Where a state actor claims immunity … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or

Seaman v. Karr

59 P.3d 701 · 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: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Aitken v. Reed

89 Wash. App. 474 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity for Section 1983 Property Interest Claim The State contends that even if Reed failed to provide Aitken a hearing as required by due process, she is protected by qualified immunity. … She is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Aitken’s due process claim.

Harrell v. State

170 Wash. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2012

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 . … and Richards enjoyed qualified immunity.

Spencer v. King County

39 Wash. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1984

State officials are afforded a qualified immunity from liability under section 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … At a minimum, the constitutional rights asserted by Spencer were not "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.

Francisco Entila Et Al., Appellants, v. Gerald Cook Et Al., Respondents

190 Wash. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 5, 2015

Given the legislative policy favoring third-party actions, one would expect any expansion of immunity to be clearly stated. Entila relies on Olson v. … To establish immunity, Cook must show that he was doing work for Boeing at the time of the accident.

Joseph Janaszak, Dds v. State Of Washington

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

This statute grants a qualified immunity. … (2) was the right at issue “clearly established” at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct. 38 Qualified immunity applies unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.39

Zaire Webb v. Washington State University

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 17, 2020

WSU qualified immunity but was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. … Qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suit so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable

Deschamps v. Mason County Sheriff's Office

123 Wash. App. 551 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 20, 2004

RCW 9.41.0975 RCW 9.41.0975 provides qualified immunity for employees who prepare and issue or deny firearm licenses in good faith. … App. 614, 622-23 , 943 P.2d 298 (1997) (“It is particularly important that good faith (or its absence) in this qualified immunity situation be determined promptly ... a prompt determination is vital because qualified immunity

Gilliam v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVS.

950 P.2d 20 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 26, 1998

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY An immunity "frees one who enjoys it from a lawsuit whether or not he acted wrongly." [3] Absolute immunity protects the State as well as its agents, in contrast to the qualified personal immunity of a State … entitled to qualified immunity for doing so). [9] Babcock v.

Commr. Eric Watness, Apps. v. The City Of Seattle, Res.

16 Wash. App. 2d 297 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 16, 2021

under RCW 4.24.420, qualified immunity, assumption of risk, and discretionary immunity. … Qualified Immunity The Estate next argues it was entitled to summary judgment on the Officers’ affirmative defense of qualified immunity. We disagree.

Donohoe v. State

135 Wash. App. 824 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 29, 2006

Donohoe required and qualified for nursing home care. … As we noted at the outset of this opinion, our state constitution clearly authorizes the legislature, not the judiciary, to determine to what extent it will waive sovereign immunity.

Turngren v. King County

38 Wash. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 23, 1984

As to that claim, however, we observe that while Bender holds there is no longer absolute immunity from such claims, a qualified immunity remains. … 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.

Geppert v. State

31 Wash. App. 33 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 15, 1982

The commissioners of Drainage District No. *35 10, established in 1912, had responsibility under RCW 85.06.080 and RCW 85.07.170 for maintaining drainage systems within their district. … Certainly other qualified machinists could have rendered an opinion regarding the reasonableness of the method and the timeliness of repair, and other qualified engineers could have given an opinion as to whether the defendants

Friends of Moon Creek v. Diamond Lake Improvement Ass'n

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 6, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials like Ms. … The prevailing view is that once the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing the defendant violated a clearly established federal right. MARTIN A.

Woody v. Stapp

146 Wash. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 20, 2008

He appeals the summary dismissal of his suit, contending material fact issues remain and the co-workers’ false statements exceeded the qualified immunity accorded internal investigative reports. We disagree and affirm. … And, qualified immunity applies with equal force here. *24 ¶20 Mr. Woody was an at-will employee. Generally, at-will employees do not have a business expectancy in continued employment. See Raymond v. Pac. Chem., 98 Wn.

Woody v. Stapp

189 P.3d 807 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 29, 2008

He appeals the summary dismissal of his suit, contending material fact issues remain and the co-workers' false statements exceeded the qualified immunity accorded internal investigative reports. We disagree, and affirm. … And, qualified immunity applies with equal force here. ¶ 20 Mr. Woody was an at-will employee. Generally, at-will employees do not have a business expectancy in continued employment. See Raymond v. Pac.

Donohoe v. State

142 P.3d 654 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 29, 2006

This legislative intent must be clearly expressed, not implied. Ravenscroft v. Wash. Water Power Co., 136 Wash.2d 911, 930 , 969 P.2d 75 (1998). … As we noted at the outset of this opinion, our state Constitution clearly authorizes the Legislature, not the judiciary, to determine to what extent it will waive sovereign immunity.

Thomas Madsen, V. Washington State Dept. Of Fish & Wildlife

561 P.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2025

The Madsens clearly made that claim in the trial court. And the “issue” is the inapplicability of RCW 77.55.181(5), and the Madsens clearly raised that issue in the trial court. … Therefore, under the plain language of RCW 77.55.181(5), immunity does not apply in this case. WDFW argues that immunity applies as long as the project would have qualified under RCW 77.55.181.