Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,747 results
1.22s
District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2026
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 20 would have known.” … A two-part test 21 resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged 22 facts that “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at 1 issue was ‘clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 20, 2021
In the alternative, VanGesen argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 10 A. … of Taylor’s claims. 14 “Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity from 15 civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or 16 constitutional
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 7, 2025
It further 10 contends that, even if Kaehler had acted with such indifference, Kaehler is entitled to 11 qualified immunity because Allen has identified no authority clearly establishing that 12 Kaehler’s conduct was … Because Allen cites no 19 supporting case law creating a clearly established right, Kaehler is entitled to qualified 20 immunity. 21 Even viewed
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2021
Two 15 issues arise when addressing qualified immunity: “(1) whether there has been a violation of a 16 constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s 17 alleged … However, defendant is entitled to 6 qualified immunity from damages for such conduct unless plaintiff can show his actions violated 7 clearly established law at the time.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJackson v. Federal Way Police Department
District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2024
Moreover, the Court notes that many of Plaintiff’s allegations are incomplete sentences. 10 To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief from government officials, they are 11 entitled to qualified immunity, … To pierce 14 that immunity, Plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right—the 15 “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that 16
Cited 0 timesUnknownDeng v. Seattle Municipal Court
District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 17, 2021
and qualified immunity, and because the Court 4 lacks jurisdiction over the claims. … Under 2 the doctrine of qualified immunity, officers cannot face liability for damages when “their 3 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 4 reasonable person would
Cited 0 timesUnknownConfederated Tribes of the Chehalis Indian Reservation v. Lujan
129 F.R.D. 171 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 8, 1990
Plaintiffs concede that the Quinault Indian Tribe is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and cannot be joined in this action. Santa Clara Pueblo v. … Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertion that there would be no impairment of the Quinault Tribe’s legal or treaty rights through court action, there clearly would be prejudice to the Quinault Indian Tribe if the court were to find
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2023
Immunity: Qualified immunity involves a two- pronged inquiry: (i) whether the facts, taken “in the light most favorable” 14 … App’x 614, 616 (9th Cir. 2017) (summarizing the “clearly established” law as of 22 1 December 2010).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 26, 2022
Additionally, Redding 19 contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly 20 established right by deploying Zepp to bite and apprehend Ellis. Id. at 5–6. … immunity test: whether 8 the right at issue was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · May 16, 2023
Qualified Immunity 16 Deputy DeZubiria argues she is entitled to qualified immunity for her alleged excessive 17 use of force on Mr. Donald. (Dkt. … “[I]n the absence of binding precedent, we look to whatever decisional 2 law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity 3 purposes, including decisions of state courts, other
Cited 0 timesUnknownWeldeyohannes v. State of Washington
District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 4, 2024
9 Defendants’ qualified immunity. … According to the doctrine, individuals are 7 immune from § 1983 liability unless their conduct amounted to a “deprivation of a constitutional 8 or statutory right . . . that was clearly established at the time of the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 12, 2024
Lastly, 23 government officials are entitled to qualified immunity, which “shields government officials 24 from civil damages liability unless … the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDodge v. Evergreen School District
District Court, W.D. Washington · May 3, 2021
14 qualified immunity.” … Dodge’s right to wear his MAGA hat was not so 14 “clearly established” as to defeat Ms. Garrett’s assertion of qualified immunity. 15 In his response, Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBerg v. Bethel School District
District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 19, 2021
DISCUSSION 18 The remaining issues for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment are whether 19 C.K.M.’s constitutional rights were clearly established to preclude qualified immunity … functions enjoy qualified 2 immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly 3 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 4 known.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2021
Qualified immunity “shields Government officials from liability for civil damages 12 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 13 rights.” Ashcroft v. … at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged 17 violation.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 22, 2023
7 Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for 8 civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 9 of which a … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is 5 clearly established when it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have 6 understood that what he is doing violates that right.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 5, 2020
“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 19 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 20 rights of which a reasonable … Under those circumstances, the deputies violated clearly 14 established law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 2, 2021
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY – GENERALLY 18 Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for 19 civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly … Qualified Immunity?
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 15, 2020
immunity. … the complaining party can demonstrate that a “clearly established” constitutional right has been 13 violated (Saucier v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 24, 2021
Similarly, courts may dismiss based on qualified 24 immunity under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) “if it is clear from the complaint that the plaintiff can 25 present no evidence that could overcome a defense of qualified immunity … 13 American Samoa,1 in violation of clearly established law as needed to defeat qualified immunity. 14 See Chavez, 817 F.3d at 1169; Ziglar v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna