Case law

Bakay v. Yarnes

431 F. Supp. 2d 1103 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 3, 2006

Defendants point out that the record clearly shows a history of disease at Plaintiffs’ cattery, including instances of feline distemper (panleukopenia), which is highly contagious and devastating to cats. … Generally, “[ujnless an equitable base is established by evidence of intent, there must be some element of wrongdoing in order to impose a constructive trust.” Baker v.

Bradley

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 10, 2025

Third, they argue their 19 actions are covered by qualified immunity. See Dkt. 44 at 6. Defendants’ first two arguments 20 resolve this matter, and the Court declines to reach the third. 21 A. … Because the Court finds no constitutional violation 4 occurred, it need not reach Defendants’ qualified immunity argument. 5 CONCLUSION 6 For

Wiseman v. Tanner

221 F. 694 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 24, 1914

Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community.” … Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regulations, established

Anthony v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 26, 2022

The USMEPCOM Chief Medical Officer and the USAREC Command Surgeon 17 subsequently determined Suhanec was medically qualified for enlistment. … Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to establish negligent hiring, Defendant 8 retains sovereign immunity and Plaintiff’s suit fails. 9 III.

Langadinos v. Washington State Bar Association

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 15, 2024

No. 11 at 17, and thus that its shares in the State Supreme Court’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. But the 21 WSBA does not discuss the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinions in Crowe v. … When conduct offered to establish outrage is not extreme, “a 6 court must withhold the case from a jury notwithstanding proof of intense 7 emotional suffering.” Brower v.

United States v. Washington

19 F. Supp. 3d 1126 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 31, 1994

At the time of submission of a matter to dispute resolution, the state and. the tribes shall each identify a qualified member. … Upon agreement of the state and the tribes, either may appoint additional qualified members of the Committee to serve in a particular case.

Donaldson v. Microsoft Corp.

205 F.R.D. 558 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 16, 2001

First, the Court examines whether the class representatives are “able to prosecute the action vigorously through qualified counsel.” Smith v. … In Paige , the plaintiff clearly described a disparate impact claim, although he did not use the words “disparate impact.” In the case at hand, Ms.

City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 26, 2023

(See e.g., id. at 59-61 (cancer), 273-74 (immune system), 301-02, 1 304-07 (neurodevelopment), 329 (reproduction).) Dr. … Hiltner clearly criticizes Dr. Boehm’s cleanup 19 benchmarks employed as part of his risk assessment methodology. (See DeBord Hiltner Decl., 20 Ex. B at 3.) Though Ms.

Feick v. Brutsche Family Revocable Trust

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 24, 2025

See generally Dkt. 8. 19 Additionally, neither case establishes RICO standing for personal injuries. See Dkt. 40 at 20 14. … the court orders they claim gives them absolute immunity, does not address the issue of 5 compliance with WSLCB procedures and running a marijuana company with an out of state 6 owner.”

Olson v. First National Insurance Company of America

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2020

Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). 23 Applicable here, the work product doctrine is a procedural immunity governed by the Federal Rules … First, Defendant does not clearly establish the 2 date upon which it reasonably anticipated litigation.

Doe v. Reed

661 F. Supp. 2d 1194 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 10, 2009

Exemptions to the Public Records Act must either be included in the act itself, or clearly expressed in another statute. RCW 42.56.070(1). … argues as follows: Absent access to the names of persons who signed referendum petitions, the public would not be able to independently examine whether the State acted properly in determining whether a referendum measure qualified

White Eagle v. Michaelis

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 12, 2022

. § 1983, a complaint must allege: (1) the 11 conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and 12 (2) the conduct deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the … Similarly, a mere difference of opinion between the defendant and plaintiff 6 regarding the appropriate course of treatment is insufficient to establish an Eighth 7 Amendment violation. Edmo v.

Samantha Lynn Clark v. The Corridor Housing

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 2, 2026

Clark may submit an 5 amended complaint within 21 days of this order to articulate more clearly how the defendant or 6 defendants violated her rights. … See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (noting the “well-established 7 doctrine that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading”).

Barr v. American Cyanamid Co.

808 F. Supp. 752 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 8, 1992

This claim clearly “has a connection with” and makes “reference to” a benefit plan. Id. II. … (docket no. 24), at 25-26 (confirms that “severance payments would be paid in addition to whatever benefits a person was qualified to receive from the company’s pension plan”).

Railcar Management LLC v. Cedar AI, Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 30, 2023

The exhibit does not itself, however, 19 establish how or to whom it was accessible. … Richard Feiner & Co., 896 3 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains 4 to be

Yu

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 4, 2026

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish a genuine issue of 19 material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). … Accordingly, the Court need 2 not reach Defendant’s alternative argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 3 III.

Kesler v. Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 31, 2022

The party 23 24 1 offering expert testimony bears the burden of establishing … He explains in his report how he reached that conclusion, see Dkt. 39-2 at 3 28–29, and it is not clearly the result of unsubstantiated beliefs or speculation.

City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 15, 2023

The proponent of expert testimony has the burden of establishing that 3 the admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 592 n.10; see 4 also Lust v. … Expert testimony is not excluded for relevancy where 6 “it speaks clearly and directly to an issue in dispute in the case, and . . . it will not mislead the 7 jury.”

Sanborn v. Kale

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 22, 2021

Most of these authorities either clearly do 18 not apply or cannot be vindicated by a private right of action. For instance, plaintiff cites Fed. R. 19 Civ. … Therefore, quasi-judicial immunity bars a suit for damages 22 against defendant Weber, even if the Court found that plaintiff stated a claim against that official 23

Picciano v. Clark County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 19, 2024

County of 3 Orange, 6 F.4th 961, 972 (9th Cir. 2021), which stated in the context of a qualified immunity 4 analysis that the court was “not aware of any precedent expressly recognizing” a particular 5 constitutional … The County fails to explain why an observation made 6 in the context of a qualified immunity analysis precludes Plaintiff’s Monell claim. 7 The only other remotely specific argument offered by the County is a conclusory