Case law

Kalmas v. Wagner

943 P.2d 1369 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1997

Because we find that no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurred, we need not address the parties' arguments regarding the under color of law requirement for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , or qualified immunity. … In respect to those issues, it is my view that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the deputies are not entitled to qualified immunity and that Kalmas and Sharpe also presented a triable issue with respect to the

Thomas v. Pacific County Sheriff's Department

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 28, 2023

immunity. … Qualified Immunity 14 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing 15

Gorvin v. Stegmann

74 Wash. 2d 177 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1968

Stegmann, an officer of the United States Army and they established their home in Columbus, Georgia, in July of that year. They had no children. … We think, however, that such a reservation is to be given effect only where the decree clearly calls for what is known under Georgia law as permanent alimony.

Richard Turay, Andre Young, V Al Nerio, Mary Reger

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 13, 2016

Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 65-66. … Here, we elect to address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the constitutional right that Turay alleges the SCC employees violated was clearly established.

Garnica v. Washington Department of Corrections

965 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 13, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Garnica’s claims. … This Court need not address qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Garnica’s claims because, as discussed above, he has not established those alleged violations of constitutional rights.

Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake

145 Wash. 2d 702 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2002

This court has established a two-part test to determine standing under the UDJA. … However, this "provision does not require that `voters may go to the polls at any time and vote on any question they see fit,'" but that "otherwise qualified voters who are significantly affected by the results of an election

Michelbrink v. Washington State Patrol

180 Wash. App. 656 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 23, 2014

Moreover, the parties do not cite, 18 nor are we aware of, any *669 Washington cases limiting such “certain injury” to major injuries. ¶18 On the contrary, RCW 51.24.020 expressly and clearly provides, “If injury results … Unlike Tegard’s declaration, however, we do not interpret WSP’s training materials as establishing certain injury for purposes of defeating summary judgment here.

Jenkins v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1

105 Wash. 2d 99 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1986

Lance's testimony at the deposition clearly demonstrates that he met the five criteria for competency set out in State v. … I am satisfied that this is sufficient to establish his competency. The credibility of his testimony is for the jury to determine.

Schroeder v. Weighall

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 16, 2014

Those cases clearly establish that we apply intermediate scrutiny to laws that burden both "'an important right and a semi-suspect class not accountable for its status."' I d. … RCW 4.16.190 does not create an impermissible immunity from lawsuits. Instead, it establishes a permissible privilege of tolling for minors with nonmedical malpractice tort claims and incapacitated adults.

Myers v. Brooks

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 13, 2019

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity 17 from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or 18 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In deciding whether qualified immunity applies, the 20 Court must determine: (1) whether the facts alleged show the defendant’s conduct violated 21 a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Seybold v. Neu

19 P.3d 1068 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 23, 2001

See also McKee wherein the Supreme Court said: "We recently reiterated the rule that to establish the standard of care required of professional practitioners, that standard must be established by the testimony of experts … While the second step of this determination of materiality clearly does not require expert testimony, the first step almost as clearly does.

Cannata v. Hoag

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 14, 2022

Whether Hoag is Entitled to Invoke Qualified Immunity 6 The R&R concluded that Hoag is not entitled to invoke qualified immunity, which … immunity under circumstances similar to this case, finding that 3 || their denial of a nonallergy alternative to the prison-provided toothpaste violated the plaintiff's 4 “clearly established” right to oral hygiene

Puki v. Okanogan County

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 16, 2024

was clearly established at the time of the incident.” … Langton’s status and thus 3 protected by qualified immunity as to the § 1983 claim.

Seybold v. Neu

105 Wash. App. 666 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 20, 2001

See also McKee wherein the Supreme Court said: “We recently reiterated the rule that to establish the standard of care required of professional practitioners, that standard must be established by the testimony of experts … While the second step of this determination of materiality clearly does not require expert testimony, the first step almost *682 as clearly does.

Peters v. Vinatieri

9 P.3d 909 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 2000

The road on which the agents drove is "clearly a private road and it is maintained entirely by myself." … See Laws of 1998, ch. 152, § 1. [5] Because we conclude that no fourth amendment violation occurred, we need not consider defendant Vinatieri's qualified immunity defense. See Benjamin v.

Cannabis Action Council v. City of Kent

Washington Supreme Court · May 21, 2015

Under the bill, qualifying patients could establish collective gardens for the purpose of growing medical marijuana for personal use. Jd. § 403 (codified at RCW 69.51A.085). … MUCA provides in relevant part that [a] qualifying patient or designated provider who is not registered with the registry established in section 901 of this act, but who presents his or her valid

Guard v. Jackson

132 Wash. 2d 660 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1997

Beeston and Guard never married, but Beeston’s paternity of Jeffrey was established by a paternity action in 1990. … A mother (married or unmarried) risks her life to bear the child and therefore qualifies. . . .

In Re Roberts

46 Wash. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 9, 1987

She points to the requirement in 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (f) that the determination to terminate parental rights be based upon "testimony of qualified expert witnesses". [4] The phrase "qualified expert witness" is meant to apply … The court concluded that these were "qualified expert witnesses" for the purposes of the ICWA. Fisher , at 553. Elaine Fiddler was well qualified within the meaning of the statute.

Donelson v. Providence Health & Services

823 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 14, 2011

Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, 156 Wash.App. 827, 848-50 , 234 P.3d 299 (2010) (rejecting Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection challenge and not reaching state Privileges and Immunities argument); Farnam, 116 Wash.2d at … Donelson’s exhibit clearly states that “Providence Health & Services— Washington/Montana Region” receives federal financial assistance; presumably, Providence Health & Services — Washington/Montana Region includes Defendant

Tracy Helm v. Dept. Of Transportation

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 20, 2014

The trial court found that the USMS as a system qualified for discretionary immunity. However, it also found that application of the USMS to defer remediation of this particular slope was fact-dependent. … The form asked, "Does the evidence establish that the [Department] balanced the risks and advantages of delaying remediation of slope 1867?"