Case law

Warden v. Nickels

697 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … There is also no clearly established law that would cause the Park Rule to violate Equal Protection by not passing rational basis review. Defendant Nickels is entitled to qualified immunity.

Miller v. Monroe School District

159 F. Supp. 3d 1238 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2016

Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity against all three § 1983 claims, because the aversive interventions did not violate any clearly *1248 established right. (Dkt. No. 73 at 22-23.) … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a clearly established right at the time of the allegedly impermissible conduct. LSO, Ltd. v.

Seattle Affiliate of the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression & the Criminalization of a Generation v. City of Seattle

430 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2006

When a defendant claims qualified immunity from civil damages, plaintiff is required to show that the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … clearly established at the time he or she acted.

Walker v. King County

630 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 18, 2009

Qualified immunity protects state governmental officials from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “as of July 1, 2005, there was no ‘clearly established’ federal case law on the exact contours of the right.” (Mot. 11 (Dkt. No. 33).)

Spencer v. Peters

907 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 2, 2012

For all those actions not covered by absolute immunity, Peters maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity. He' further argues that Mr. … Qualified Immunity Like Davidson and Krause, Peters argues he is entitled to qualified immunity based on: (1) probable cause, (2) Mr.

Ferrel v. Brown

847 F. Supp. 1524 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 19, 1993

LEXIS 11933, at *9-10 (D.Idaho July 19, 1993) (holding individual IRS agents are shielded by qualified immunity from constitutional tort claims arising from tax levies); Waring Park v. … Clearly, the plaintiff is unable to seek award of litigation costs from this court proceeding as the substantive claims are dismissed and thus she has not prevailed.

Thomas v. City of Seattle

395 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2005

Qualified Immunity of Officer Martin Qualified immunity is an “entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Saucier v. … As a result, the court denies Officer Martin’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. 3.

Moline v. City of Castle Rock

528 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 14, 2005

violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Defendants McNew, Queen, and McCoy are entitled to qualified immunity and to summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff Moline's claims against them.

Manning v. Washington

463 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The defendants contend that Troopers Clevenger and Ducommon are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate Mr. Manning’s clearly established constitutional rights. … The Court should therefore decline to hold, at this point, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants are not precluded from raising the issue of qualified immunity at trial. E.

Aldrich v. Knab

858 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 19, 1994

Qualified immunity shields public employees who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages- 8 where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Constitutional protection of such speech is clearly established.

Dunn v. HYRA

676 F. Supp. 2d 1172 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 2, 2009

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Qualified Immunity Having determined that violations of Mr. Tompkins’s and Mr.

Spencer v. Peters

966 F. Supp. 2d 1146 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2013

Krause argues she is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. … Thus, qualified immunity is denied. E.

Kees v. Wallenstein

973 F. Supp. 1191 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 14, 1997

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … it is not clearly established today.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. City of Seattle

274 F. Supp. 3d 1155 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 1, 2017

state' immunity. … Trade Comm’n, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1101, 1111 , 191 L.Ed,2d 36 (2015), Under the Ordinance, the City’s Director of Finance and Administrative Services establishes criteria for the identification of qualifying drivers whose

In Re Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation

623 F. Supp. 1466 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 5, 1985

Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 , 96 S.Ct. 1375 , 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976) it was clearly established that scienter must be alleged for a claim under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act. … The issue in the case was whether local governments were entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983.

Horan v. King County, Washington, Division of Emergency Medical Services

740 F. Supp. 1471 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 20, 1990

KING COUNTY’S IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY. 1. Absolute Immunity. … For King County to qualify for complete immunity under section 259, the County must show that its actions (1) were taken in reliance on regulations or a written ruling of the Wage and Hour Administrator; (2) were in conformity

Gamboa v. King County

562 F. Supp. 2d 1288 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 7, 2008

Police officers are, however, entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Qualified immunity shields government officials, acting within one of their discretionary functions, from civil liability as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable

John v. Berry

469 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 18, 2006

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state officials “performing discretionary functions [are protected] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, “an official is denied qualified immunity only if the law was clearly established and a reasonable official could not have believed the conduct was lawful.” Id.

Pete v. Tacoma School District No. 10

198 F. Supp. 3d 1206 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 2016

Analyzing qualified immunity is a two-pronged test, considering (1) whether the conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established. Saucier v. … The parties should first focus them discovery on issues of qualified immunity. a.

Wright v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

269 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 28, 2002

not clearly established. … immunity. 4 .