Case law

Hernandez v. Federal Way

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 10, 2020

entitles the officers to immunity. … It appears that the two additional defenses are merely state statutes that reiterate the 20]| federal qualified immunity defenses, and therefore would rely on the same proof already gathered 21|| during discovery. 22

Intsel Corp. v. M/V ANTONIA JOHNSON

549 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 22, 1982

It has been held that such an extension cannot adversely affect rights vested in the stevedoring agents, particularly the right to rely on an established limitation period for filing suit. See Dorsid Trading Co. v. … Although the extension of “exemptions and immunities from and limitations of liability” to the stevedore is dependent upon the carrier’s right to such benefits, the decision whether to exercise or to waive any specific benefit

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Calmar Steamship Corp.

404 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 13, 1975

I also note that all of said activity was witnessed and approved by qualified representatives of both Weyerhaeuser and Calmar. … First, in order to avail itself of the COGSA exemptions Calmar must initially establish its due diligence to avoid the unseaworthy conditions that caused the loss. 31 This it has not done.

Roberts v. Sinclair

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 6, 2019

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right was clearly 9 established. See Davis v. … Accordingly, all Defendants sued in their individual 3 capacity are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Ballou v. McElvain

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 24, 2023

Leighton who retired from the bench in August 2020, denied McElvain’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Ballou’s Fourteenth and First Amendment claims, and for qualified immunity. (Dkt. No. 67 at 12–13.) … On remand, the Court clarified Ballou did not demonstrate McElvain violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights under 0 “clearly established” authority. (Dkt. No. 94 at 4.)

Drake v. Pierce

698 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 12, 1988

Congress sought inter alia to subsidize low-income families in the rental of existing housing under the Certificate Program, established in 1974, and the Voucher Program, established in 1983. … Clearly, Congress expected PHAs to retain responsibility over which applicant to select as tenants.

Johnson v. Clark County Sheriff

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 30, 2024

Murray 4 and Joachim also contend that they are qualifiedly immune from Johnson’s excessive 5 force claims because Johnson fails to establish that they violated a clearly established 6 right. … has . . . shown . . . make out a 9 violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at 10 the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Ventura v. City of Seattle

99 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 19, 2000

In order to establish the preceding uses the following must be obtained: a Special Use Permit to establish commercial or recreational moorage; a Master Use Permit to establish use; SEPA and Shoreline Substantial Development … Petitioners’ interpretation would make the determination of whether a craft qualified as a vessel dependent on non-statutory sources.

United States v. Striet

313 F. Supp. 2d 1062 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 19, 2004

The court stated that, While in some cases a sentencing court properly may cumulate documentation of prior criminal convictions to find that such documentation “clearly establishes” a prior criminal conviction, in the context … Defendant’s argument, however, amounts to nothing more than the assertion that the conviction records do not clearly establish that the defendant plead guilty to the generic elements of burglary.

Ruggiero v. Public Benefit Transportation Area of Snohomish County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 18, 2025

a qualified individual with a disability; and (3) he suffered an 15 adverse employment action because of his disability.” … Indeed, he has alleged only a benefit of natural immunity and made no allegations of 22 negative effects whatsoever.

Aguda v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 6, 2025

The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. 13 See United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010). 14 Mr. … For that reason, 7 any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant, the claim asserted, the specific facts 8 that Mr. Aguda believes support the claim, and the specific relief requested. If Mr.

Waldo v. Poe

14 F.2d 749 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 28, 1926

Clearly the state court would not have jurisdiction to enforce rights claimed under a federal law, withheld by a federal officer. … Rust, 119 Wash. 480, at 488 , 206 P. 33, 36 , recognizes an osteopath as a “regularly qualified physician,” but not a “regularly qualified physician licensed to practice medicine.”

Silver Fern Chemical Inc v. Lyons

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

“Trade secrets, however, are not immune from discovery.” 14 UCC Ueshima Coffee Co., Ltd. v. Tully’s Coffee Corp., No. C06-1604, 2007 WL 710092, at *1 15 (W.D. Wash. … It also clearly 16 contemplates that any reference to a “Party” is to a single party and not a collective.

Sims v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 31, 2023

Claims Against Individual Officers: Qualified Immunity 20 “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are not liable under § 1983 21 ‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional … right, and (2) the unlawfulness of 22 their conduct was “clearly established” at the time.’”

Ingrid Johnson v. Microsoft Corporation, et al.

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 13, 2026

Thus, the court dismisses 20 with prejudice on the basis of judicial immunity Ms. … as clearly irrational or wholly 7 incredible.”

Hargrave v. University of Washington

113 F. Supp. 3d 1085 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 1, 2015

To establish a prima face case by indirect evidence, a plaintiff “must show that (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly … RCW 34.05.010(2), (7). - The exhaustion requirement applies “(1) when a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an agency alone; (2) when the agency’s authority establishes clearly defined machinery- for the submission

Kuchan v. Heston

143 B.R. 768 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 5, 1992

Here, Ruchan clearly does not fit. Private trustees are paid by the bankruptcy court on the basis of the case completed. … Section 586 directs the United States Trustee to “establish, maintain, and supervise a panel of private trustees.”

Sonia v. Rainer

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

The plaintiff must show that officials violated 19 a constitutional right and that this right was “clearly established.” Id. A court may 20 consider the two prongs in whatever order it chooses. Pearson v. … Accordingly, 9 the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the first prong of the qualified 10 immunity test is not satisfied.    11 B.

Renato v. Beaulieu

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 20, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, shields government officials from 20 liability where the right alleged to have been violated was not “clearly established” at the time of 21 the alleged actions. … Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (per curiam) 22 (“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 23 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Metz

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 24, 2026

That said, the Court considers them for the limited purpose of 19 establishing two undisputed facts—that Metz was charged and convicted of … However, because the decision whether to prosecute is protected by 13 absolute rather than qualified immunity, the prosecutor’s state of mind when 14 making the decision to prosecute is irrelevant to this inquiry.