Case law

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.”

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.

Becker v. Washington State University

165 Wash. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 13, 2011

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Becker must establish a violation of due process, equal protection, or free expression to avoid qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . ¶42 The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary

Wendell Long v. Snoqualmie Gaming Commission

435 P.3d 339 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 25, 2019

Broad Application of the Language of the Agreement Long claims that the settlement agreement provision waiving sovereign immunity clearly and unambiguous waives the immunity of the Commission. … Ed 2d 773 (1996) (indicating that qualified immunity protects one from the burdens of litigation, including pretrial actions, and therefore a court should stay discovery during determination regarding immunity).

King v. Garfield County Public Hospital District No. 1

17 F. Supp. 3d 1060 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 1, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants contend, in the alternative, that Craigie, Morrow, and Beehler are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … “Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right — when the officer should have known he was violating the Constitution — does he forfeit qualified immunity.” Id.

Thomas Madsen, V. Washington State Dept. Of Fish & Wildlife

561 P.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2025

The Madsens clearly made that claim in the trial court. And the “issue” is the inapplicability of RCW 77.55.181(5), and the Madsens clearly raised that issue in the trial court. … Therefore, under the plain language of RCW 77.55.181(5), immunity does not apply in this case. WDFW argues that immunity applies as long as the project would have qualified under RCW 77.55.181.

Walker v. King County

630 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 18, 2009

Qualified immunity protects state governmental officials from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “as of July 1, 2005, there was no ‘clearly established’ federal case law on the exact contours of the right.” (Mot. 11 (Dkt. No. 33).)

State Farm General Insurance v. Emerson

102 Wash. 2d 477 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1984

Cain's suggested reading adds words to the clause which are clearly not present. The words "this policy does not apply ... to bodily injury to any insured" are not qualified. … The term "such bodily injury" is qualified in the preceding sentence with the words, "to which this insurance applies."

Doggett v. Perez

348 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 18, 2004

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields § 1983 defendants “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, Perez is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. B. Compulsory.

Furfaro v. City of Seattle

97 Wash. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 27, 1999

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine protecting government officials from civil liability for performing discretionary functions “insofar as their *552 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Once a defendant properly raises the issue of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the occurrence at issue. Anderson v.

State v. City of Sunnyside

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2024

Courts determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity by considering (1) whether the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right was “clearly established” at … No. 101205-5 the individual respondents engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of a clearly established right. Respondents are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Roy v. City of Everett

118 Wash. 2d 352 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1992

Viewing the statute as a whole and considering the legislative intent that underlies the act, RCW 10.99.070 clearly grants qualified immunity to peace officers for conduct arising out of incidents of domestic violence. … Conversely, the phrase "in good faith" clearly limits the scope of immunity that the Legislature accords to peace officers under the domestic violence act.

Seattle Affiliate of the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression & the Criminalization of a Generation v. City of Seattle

430 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2006

When a defendant claims 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 would have known … clearly established at the time he or she acted.

M.W. v. Department of Social & Health Services

110 Wash. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 8, 2002

For the caseworkers to have qualified immunity against such a claim, they must “(1) carry out a statutory duty, (2) according to procedures dictated by statute or superiors, and (3) act reasonably.” Lesley, 83 Wn. … Even if Francis has qualified immunity, the State can still be liable for negligent investigation. Waller v. State, 64 Wn. App. 318, 334 , 824 P.2d 1225 (1992).

PETROLINO v. County of Spokane

678 F. Supp. 2d 1082 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 14, 2009

The corrections officers seek qualified immunity. As a general rule, analyzing a request for qualified immunity is a two-step process. Saucier v. … Even assuming a jury issue exists with respect to whether Deputies Skinner and Leonetti violated the Constitution, they are entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established on May 1, 2004, that corrections

State v. Groom

133 Wash. 2d 679 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1997

See Supplemental Br. of Pet’r at 13 (discussing qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); Groom, 80 Wn. … 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.

Daniel v. State

36 Wash. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 3, 1983

However, the State argues the troopers are protected by a qualified immunity *65 from liability for false arrest. … In civil rights actions, the courts have "uniformly refused to award damages when the constitutional right allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the conduct." Hocker v. Woody, supra at 826.

Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County

119 Wash. 2d 91 · Washington Supreme Court · May 14, 1992

State, 103 Wn.2d 144, 153 , 690 P.2d 1163 (1984) (municipality enjoys the qualified immunity of its police officers). But cf. Babcock v. … State, supra at 619-22, where we held that the State does not get the benefit of the qualified or absolute immunity of its Department of Social and Health Services caseworkers.

Kalmas v. Wagner

82 Wash. App. 105 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 3, 1996

Rather, mental state affects qualified immunity and the availability of damages as a remedy. … App. 784, 788 , 892 P.2d 745 (1995) ("qualified immunity may be established as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict. . . .

Locke v. City of Seattle

133 Wash. App. 696 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 19, 2006

scrutiny” to RCW 41.26.281, we find that the provision is clearly applied alike to all members of the designated class. … We also reject the city’s argument that trainees such as Locke are not qualified LEOFF members because they are not fully trained fire fighters.