Case law

Hayden v. Knight

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 21, 2023

The Court also noted that legislative immunity 13 may protect the King County councilmembers, and that qualified immunity may protect the other 14 King County defendants. … Additionally, the remaining six 22 Defendants are likely immune from Plaintiff’s claims either under legislative or qualified 23 immunity. See supra § IV.A.

Rodarte v. Skagit County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 26, 2021

was not clearly established.” … There is a clearly established right not to be subjected to criminal charges based on false 17 evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.

Addleman v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 23, 2023

The Court need not Reach the Question of Qualified Immunity. 9 The King County Defendants state that Plaintiffs cannot state a claim against the 10 individual defendants because they are entitled to qualified … To 11 determine the validity of a qualified immunity claim, a court determines “whether the defendants 12 violated a constitutional right and whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the 13 time of

Perry v. White

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

Qualified Immunity 15 Defendants also raise a qualified immunity defense. Dkt. No. 29 at 7. … In determining 16 whether a public official sued in their individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity, courts 17 consider whether “the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”

Abdur-Rahman v. Napolitano

868 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 13, 2012

The EAJA partially waives the sovereign immunity of the United States and creates a precisely-defined class of adjudications in which an award of attorney’s fees is allowed. W. Watersheds Project v. … Adbur-Rahman has submitted a declaration which establishes that he meets this financial requirement. Dkt. # 123. II.

The Geo. L. Harvey

273 F. 972 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 25, 1921

The work performed and the material furnished, except as to Augustine & Kyer and possibly some portions of other claims, is clearly in the nature of construction, and bore in no sense a relation to trade and commerce. … Ed. —, December 6, 1920, said: “The doctrine is now firmly established that contracts to construct entirely new ships are nonmaritime, because not nearly enough related to any rights and duties pertaining to commerce and

Lloyd v. Buzell

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 11, 2022

Defendants sought summary judgment on all Lloyd’s 22 claims, arguing there was no evidence in support of them, and that they were entitled to 1 qualified immunity in any event. Dkt. 78. … Lloyd has not made such a showing, particularly as to the defendants’ claim 9 of qualified immunity, and the evidence of the alleged excessive force is lacking in any 10 event.

Gallegos

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 26, 2026

The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part analysis for resolving government 16 officials’ qualified immunity claims. See Saucier v. … “[I]n deciding whether qualified immunity 18 applies, [the court] ask[s] two questions: (1) did the officer violate a constitutional right, and (2) 19 was that right clearly established at the time of the events at issue

Stewart v. Extra Space Storage

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 28, 2025

All facts, witnesses, and documents which The City bases its contention set 10 forth in ¶ 81 of the Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint stating that the City “is entitled to qualified immunity … “This 1 Rule was intended to prevent the officers or managers of larger organizations from 2 ‘bandying,’ the practice of disclaiming knowledge of facts clearly known to the 3 organization.”

Protect The Peninsula's Future v. Haaland

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 12, 2024

Dkt. 36. 9 Plaintiffs contend that Jamestown does not qualify for intervention as a matter of 10 right. … Regarding the second factor, Jamestown clearly has an 10 interest relating to the property that is the subject of the action.

Rynearson v. Motricity, Inc.

626 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 15, 2009

Motricity bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Abrego v. Dow Chem. … Exxon Corp., 25 F.3d 773, 779 (9th Cir.1994) (reply brief qualifies as “other paper”).

City of Monroe v. Fisher

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 17, 2021

Bright argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields federal 24 and state officials from lawsuits unless a plaintiff establishes (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and 92) that the right was “clearly established

Langworthy v. Clallam County Sheriff

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

taken within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction,” even if the motives 10 underlying the ultimate act are “clearly improper.” … (“[A] conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome 14 of a judicial proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity 15 extended to judges and prosecutors.

Wood v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 30, 2025

Qualified Immunity 2 Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 168, 169. … When 3 defendants assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss, “‘dismissal is not appropriate unless 4 [the Court] can determine, based on the complaint itself, that qualified immunity applies.’” 5 O’Brien v.

Fisher v. Department of Financial Institutions

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 2025

The Jones court noted that this 9 was insufficient to establish a bona fide religious belief, because “she fails to establish 10 what exactly her belief system is.” Id. at *5. … Additionally, the plaintiff quite 7 clearly had scientific and political objections to the vaccine that he attempted to fit to his 8 religious beliefs in order to potentially qualify for a religious exemption. Id.

Nelson v. White (In re White)

47 B.R. 410 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 8, 1985

Prior to bankruptcy, White was clearly in control of both White Metal and the profit-sharing plan. … Clearly, the ERISA plan purports to restrict alienation of beneficial interests.

Neal v. City of Bainbridge Island

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 19, 2023

other discretionary decisions, the City’s conduct meets the four-part test set forth in Evangelical 17 to qualify for discretionary immunity. … That motion is noted for April 21, 2023. 24 1 When determining whether a government act qualifies for discretionary immunity under 2

Ketschau v. United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 2, 2024

“Anglo–American 2 common law has long recognized judicial immunity, a sweeping form of immunity for acts 3 performed by judges that relate to the judicial process.” … “Absolute immunity fails to attach to judicial officers 5 only when they act clearly and completely outside the scope of their jurisdiction.”

Brusco Tug & Barge, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

897 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 26, 2012

Ultimately, the Towage Agreement language contains qualifying language that distinguishes this case from the Fifth Circuit precedents. … Defendant’s reliance on the well-established case law is therefore misplaced.

Nocita v. Krohn

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 28, 2024

The plaintiff must show that officials violated 11 a constitutional right and that this right was “clearly established.” Id. A court may 12 consider the two prongs in whatever order it chooses. Pearson v. … immunity because the first prong of 2 the qualified immunity test is not satisfied.  3 C.