Case law

Stenson v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 13, 2024

Legal Standard 12 Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages 13 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … No Qualified Immunity for Excessive Force Claim 18 The Parties dispute whether the law is clearly established that Leenstra acted in violation 19 of the Fourth Amendment by shooting Sarrett without

Cook

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 28, 2026

See generally Dkt. # 33. 4 Likewise, without a clear violation of federal law, Plaintiff cannot overcome Defendants’ 5 immunity arguments. See, e.g., Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine 6 of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as 7 their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Saade v. State of Washington Department of Health

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 18, 2019

Fenimore allegedly violated was “clearly established” at the time of the 13 alleged violations.1 14 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order … immunity grounds.

Tofte v. City of Longview

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 23, 2024

immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for 10 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … immunity.”).

Scott v. City of Seattle

99 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 13, 1999

Plaintiffs fail to establish a substantive due process claim under the federal or state constitutions. C." … Otherwise, one would be able to obtain immunity from state regulation by making private contractual arrangements.” United States Trust Co. v.

Sloan v. United States Department of Agriculture

335 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 6, 1971

Plaintiffs allege that, although they qualify for food stamps, their incomes are so low that' they cannot afford them. 1 2 This matter came before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but because … Where, as here, the facts clearly indicate that the request concerns an area that qualifies for dual operation by virtue of its severely depressed economy, the Secretary has the duty to approve that request.

Lopez v. Johns Manville

649 F. Supp. 149 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 1986

Such agreements purporting to deprive an employer of the immunity provided by the Industrial Insurance Act are disfavored under Washington law, and any intent to provide for indemnification must be clearly expressed in the … Clearly, an employer subject to the LHWCA before amendment does not abide in circumstances similar to the United States subject to the FTCA and the FECA.

Hardt v. Brink

192 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 27, 1961

Clearly, the ordinary insurance solicitor only assumes those duties normally found in any agency relationship. … It is particularly significant that plaintiff’s expert witness, a man well qualified in the field of fire and casualty insurance, and possessing knowledge as to the standard practice of qualified insurance specialists in

Johnson v. Clark County Sheriff

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 14, 2023

immunity, Dkt. 42. … Dkt. 27. 1 Johnson’s motion asks the Court to determine as a matter of law that Deputy 2 Joachim and Officer Murray are not entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 42 at 1.

Korter v. City of Lakewood

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 6, 2024

Qualified Immunity 10 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 11 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. 21 The second step of the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right was 22 clearly established at the time of the conduct—requires courts

Langworthy v. Washington Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 21, 2025

Langworthy faces is establishing a waiver of 24 those agencies’ sovereign immunity. She has not identified a basis for such waiver, and must do 1 so in any amended complaint. See Kohn v. … To make out a prima 10 facie case under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a 11 “qualified individual with a disability,” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); (2) she is “otherwise qualified

Watkins v. City of Olympia

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2024

Winner—are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims. 8 Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than … immunity: (1) whether the facts alleged show that the officer violated a 16 constitutional right; and if so, (2) whether the right was clearly

Tucson v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 27, 2024

immunity due to inadequate evidence; and (5) 2 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. … The Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the 12 jury found that they violated clearly established law.

Brown v. Murphy

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 18, 2023

And Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendants are not entitled to qualified 3 immunity based on a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Aberdeen Aerie No. 24 of Fraternal Order of Eagles v. United States

50 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 9, 1943

I shall not endeavor to enumerate all of the elements that exist here, but the undisputed facts and admissions clearly establish the contention of the plaintiff that the orchestras, during the years here involved, supplied … That was established in this case, but, of itself, it can not be the controlling factor in the establishment of the relationship of employer and employee.

Baker v. O'Reilly

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 1, 2024

6 To defeat qualified immunity Baker must show: (1) the officials violated a federal 7 statutory or constitutional right; and (2) at the time of the alleged act or failure to act, there was 8 clearly established … Given that the law on both 12 claims was clearly established, the Court finds that qualified immunity cannot be granted 13 because the facts remain in dispute as to whether Defendants violated Baker’s right to meet with

Roberts v. Khounphixay

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 26, 2020

Qualified Immunity 8 Defendant Khounphixay seeks qualified immunity because “there is no clearly 9 established law that restraints cannot be used to protect an inmate … “The 11 doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages 12 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 13 which

Fair v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 13, 2023

“Clearly Established” Right 8 A constitutional right is “clearly established” if existing controlling precedent … Qualified immunity ensures that, before individuals face 12 suit under § 1983, they had notice (or “fair warning”) of the unlawfulness of their conduct, and 13 thus, a constitutional right is considered “clearly established

Heath v. Zolotoi

221 F.R.D. 545 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 12, 2004

P. 26(b)(3), Advisory Committee Notes (“Materials assembled in the ordinary course of business ... are not under the qualified immunity provided by this subsection.”); United States v. … These admissions establish that the statements were prepared in the ordinary course of business, not in “anticipation of litigation.”

Shokri v. Boeing Co.

311 F. Supp. 3d 1204 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 25, 2018

Plaintiff did not believe that his new manager was qualified or effective as Mr. … Defendant Had Legitimate Business Reasons for Its Actions The record clearly establishes that Defendant had legitimate business reasons for Plaintiff's 2014 PM ratings and the 2015 RIF ratings and termination.