Case law

HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of Seattle

979 P.2d 400 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not. … Nor, as noted, is the City entitled to the benefit of any qualified personal immunity enjoyed by the probation counselor.

Chism v. Washington Ex Rel. Washington State Patrol

683 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity and Summary Judgment 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 … Even assuming the existence of a constitutional violation, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Jamison v. Storm

426 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 29, 2006

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Officer English is also entitled to qualified immunity as to the state-created danger doctrine claim on the grounds the right Plaintiff asserts, even if it existed, was not clearly established … Even if a viable constitutional right existed, Officer English would be entitled to qualified immunity because that right has not been clearly established as it relates to the circumstances of this case.

Seattle Pacific University v. Haas

626 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 7, 1985

Since qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, plaintiffs argue, the court cannot consider possible qualified immunity on a motion for leave to amend a complaint. … by reference to clearly established law.

Mendoza v. City of Vancouver

269 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 29, 2017

Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As above, in considering whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court may consider the second Scmcier factor, first: whether the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were clearly established when viewed in

Hennick v. Bowling

115 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 14, 2000

Where a § 1983 defendant has claimed 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 … Qualified immunity is unavailable where, as here, the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise. Anderson v.

Marcotte v. Monroe Corrections Complex

394 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 18, 2005

Disputed Material Facts Prevent the Court From Making a Qualified Immunity Determination. Defendants claim that Superintendent Moore and Dr. Kenney are entitled to qualified immunity. … In support of their qualified immunity claim as to Superintendent Moore and Dr.

Joseph Janaszak, Dds v. State Of Washington

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

This statute grants a qualified immunity. … (2) was the right at issue “clearly established” at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct. 38 Qualified immunity applies unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.39

Zaire Webb v. Washington State University

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 17, 2020

WSU qualified immunity but was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. … Qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suit so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable

Bosteder v. City of Renton

155 Wash. 2d 18 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2005

However, I disagree the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they did not violate a “clearly established” right. … Officials may claim an affirmative defense of qualified immunity, but that defense “must fail if the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the act.” Staats v.

Hamilton v. City of Olympia

687 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2009

were clearly established. … were clearly established at the time of the injury.

Miniken v. Walter

978 F. Supp. 1356 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 26, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants contend that even if Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated by prohibiting the delivery of Prison Legal News, they are immune from liability for damages. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Cregan v. Fourth Memorial Church

175 Wash. 2d 279 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2012

If the property is not open to the public, then immunity does not attach. ¶11 Landowners who open their lands to the public may be able to restrict some access and still qualify for recreational use immunity, but the line … To qualify for immunity under the statute, however, a landowner cannot restrict access by discriminating against the user based on personal traits. 5 When an owner excludes people in this way — that is, has a selective invitation

Furfaro v. City of Seattle

144 Wash. 2d 363 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2001

The Court of Appeals also recognized, in its discussion of the qualified immunity issue, that the warrant requirement was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity is appropriate in this case precisely because the right violated was not clearly established: “The contours of the right to perform a nude stage dance without fear of warrantless arrest are not clearly

Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle

119 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

Absolute immunity is not available for administrative acts of local officials. Creekside Assocs., Inc. v. Wood Dale, 684 F. Supp. 201, 205-06 (N.D. Ill. 1988). However, qualified immunity has been found to exist. … The determination of whether a particular right is "clearly established" is a complex one. Substantive due process claims have previously been found to be "well established" by the federal court. Bateson v.

State v. Simmons

2018 Ohio 2018 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Washington County · May 15, 2018

The amendment added R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b), which grants immunity to "a qualified individual." See R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(f) (describing R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) as granting immunity). … immunity to a qualified individual.

Bishop v. Miche

973 P.2d 465 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1999

We said in Taggart that this duty arises only when it has been shown that the parole officer lacks absolute and qualified immunity for the actions claimed to be negligent. … Thus, following Savage , a finding of qualified personal immunity on the part of the individual officer does not end the inquiry.

Levine v. City of Bothell

904 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 24, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Ungvarsky is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that the failure to support a warrant by oath or affirmation amounts to a federal constitutional violation. … Therefore, the Court must turn to whether the right was clearly established. Because the “oath or affirmation” requirement appears in the text of the constitution, it is clearly established law. U.S. Const, amend. IV.

Deschamps v. Mason County Sheriff's Office

123 Wash. App. 551 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 20, 2004

RCW 9.41.0975 RCW 9.41.0975 provides qualified immunity for employees who prepare and issue or deny firearm licenses in good faith. … App. 614, 622-23 , 943 P.2d 298 (1997) (“It is particularly important that good faith (or its absence) in this qualified immunity situation be determined promptly ... a prompt determination is vital because qualified immunity

Estate of Villarreal v. Cooper

929 F. Supp. 2d 1063 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 6, 2013

Fourth Amendment and Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, including police officers, from liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Whether the Right Was Clearly Established Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when the right was not “clearly established” at the time of the officer’s conduct