Case law

Gilliam v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVS.

950 P.2d 20 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 26, 1998

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY An immunity "frees one who enjoys it from a lawsuit whether or not he acted wrongly." [3] Absolute immunity protects the State as well as its agents, in contrast to the qualified personal immunity of a State … entitled to qualified immunity for doing so). [9] Babcock v.

Warden v. Nickels

697 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2010

“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 rights of which a reasonable person … There is also no clearly established law that would cause the Park Rule to violate Equal Protection by not passing rational basis review. Defendant Nickels is entitled to qualified immunity.

McCarthy v. Barrett

804 F. Supp. 2d 1126 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 26, 2011

Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for civil liability as long as their conduct does not *1144 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … In analyzing a qualified immunity defense, the court must determine (1) what right has been violated, and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident. Saucier v.

Commr. Eric Watness, Apps. v. The City Of Seattle, Res.

16 Wash. App. 2d 297 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 16, 2021

under RCW 4.24.420, qualified immunity, assumption of risk, and discretionary immunity. … Qualified Immunity The Estate next argues it was entitled to summary judgment on the Officers’ affirmative defense of qualified immunity. We disagree.

Donohoe v. State

135 Wash. App. 824 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 29, 2006

Donohoe required and qualified for nursing home care. … As we noted at the outset of this opinion, our state constitution clearly authorizes the legislature, not the judiciary, to determine to what extent it will waive sovereign immunity.

State v. Nicolls

61 Wash. 142 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1910

In the statute before us no qualifying words are employed. One who'sells, gives, or barters intoxicating liquor to an Indian or one of mixed blood, is guilty. … The fact of selling being established, the law supplies the element of intent.

Prison Legal News v. Lehman

272 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 17, 2003

The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The Court also finds that a prisoner's liberty interest in uncensored communication by catalog and non-subscription bulk mail was not so clearly established as to preclude qualified immunity for the individual defendants

Furfaro v. City of Seattle

27 P.3d 1160 · 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

Hocker v. Woody

95 Wash. 2d 822 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1981

They have, however, a qualified immunity so that they may exercise their discretion without undue timidity. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 , 94 S. Ct. 1683 (1974); Wood v. … The petitioner's constitutional rights were therefore not clearly established at the time of the conduct and she could recover only if Woody's actions showed a malicious intent.

Entila v. Cook

187 Wash. 2d 480 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2017

RCW 51.08.013 then establishes employer immunity and defines “acting in the course of employment.” … These statutory provisions demonstrate that benefit eligibility and employer immunity are analytically tied—if an injured worker qualifies for benefits, the employer cannot be sued. ¶7 Although RCW 51.08.013 establishes benefit

Turngren v. King County

38 Wash. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 23, 1984

As to that claim, however, we observe that while Bender holds there is no longer absolute immunity from such claims, a qualified immunity remains. … We believe a qualified privilege will adequately protect police officers in releasing information to the public and press. It is then the plaintiff's burden to establish an abuse of that qualified privilege to recover.

Kirkham v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 9, 2025

Qualified Immunity 8 County Defendants also assert Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed because they are 9 entitled to qualified immunity. … To begin, qualified immunity is a defense to liability only for 10 those sued in their individual capacities under § 1983.

Geppert v. State

31 Wash. App. 33 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 15, 1982

The commissioners of Drainage District No. *35 10, established in 1912, had responsibility under RCW 85.06.080 and RCW 85.07.170 for maintaining drainage systems within their district. … Certainly other qualified machinists could have rendered an opinion regarding the reasonableness of the method and the timeliness of repair, and other qualified engineers could have given an opinion as to whether the defendants

Friends of Moon Creek v. Diamond Lake Improvement Ass'n

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 6, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials like Ms. … The prevailing view is that once the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing the defendant violated a clearly established federal right. MARTIN A.

Woody v. Stapp

146 Wash. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 20, 2008

He appeals the summary dismissal of his suit, contending material fact issues remain and the co-workers’ false statements exceeded the qualified immunity accorded internal investigative reports. We disagree and affirm. … And, qualified immunity applies with equal force here. *24 ¶20 Mr. Woody was an at-will employee. Generally, at-will employees do not have a business expectancy in continued employment. See Raymond v. Pac. Chem., 98 Wn.

Jones v. State, Dept. of Health

242 P.3d 825 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

Qualified immunity ¶ 27 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions" are immune from § 1983 suits "if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against … clearly established law."

Woody v. Stapp

189 P.3d 807 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 29, 2008

He appeals the summary dismissal of his suit, contending material fact issues remain and the co-workers' false statements exceeded the qualified immunity accorded internal investigative reports. We disagree, and affirm. … And, qualified immunity applies with equal force here. ¶ 20 Mr. Woody was an at-will employee. Generally, at-will employees do not have a business expectancy in continued employment. See Raymond v. Pac.

Assurance Wireless USA, LP v. Dep't of Revenue

544 P.3d 471 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2024

But here, Assurance accrues a legal claim to $9.25 for each qualifying low-income consumer that it provides services to, and the payments are clearly for the services. 47 C.F.R. § 54.407 (reimbursement to carrier “based … findings concerning the establishment of USAC.”

State v. Groom

947 P.2d 240 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1997

Br. of Pet'r at 13 (discussing qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); Groom, 80 Wash.App. at 722 n. 2, 911 P.2d 403 (noting that in the civil context, qualified immunity is available unless, among other things, the … And, as discussed above, we reject Defendant's claim that the statute must incorporate qualified immunity concepts—civil qualified immunity has no place in this criminal prosecution.

Miller v. Monroe School District

159 F. Supp. 3d 1238 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2016

Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity against all three § 1983 claims, because the aversive interventions did not violate any clearly *1248 established right. (Dkt. No. 73 at 22-23.) … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a clearly established right at the time of the allegedly impermissible conduct. LSO, Ltd. v.