Case law

Miguel v. Guess

51 P.3d 89 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 18, 2002

He cites Bator for the proposition that "[q]ualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, Bator held that no qualified immunity existed to protect the defendants from a suit alleging sexual harassment.

State v. Bryant

42 P.3d 1278 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 2002

While the ability of the government to compel testimony in exchange for a grant of immunity is now well established, this formal immunity process is cloaked with a high degree of constitutional protection. … Clearly, a prosecuting attorney can limit such a grant to prosecutions in the prosecutor's home county by so providing in the immunity agreement.

Estate of Jones v. State

107 Wash. App. 510 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 26, 2000

State, the court held that while parole officers have qualified personal immunity, that immunity does not run to the State, which remains liable for a parole *519 officer’s negligent supervision. 13 In Bishop v. … Bishop, 137 Wn.2d at 524-26 (discussing absolute and qualified immunity for parole officers). Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 223-24 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992). Taggart, 118 Wn.2d at 223-24 . Taggart, 118 Wn.2d at 210-11 .

Korean Presbyterian Church of Seattle Normalization Committee v. Sun Young Lee

75 Wash. App. 833 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 26, 1994

Conduct does not qualify for immunity based upon the privilege if the conduct at issue is not religiously motivated, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 , 32 L. Ed. 2d 15 , 92 S. … The Petitioners’ answer clearly states as an affirmative defense that the conduct was privileged.

Shannon v. Pay 'N Save Corp.

104 Wash. 2d 722 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1985

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under a "disparate treatment" theory, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected class, (2) he applied and was qualified for a job for which the … The Supreme Court, however, has clearly indicated that the burden of proving less discriminatory alternatives falls on the plaintiff once the defendant establishes his defense. Albemarle Paper Co. v.

Schenck v. Edwards

921 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 1, 1996

Pease and Officers Whalen and Pierce are entitled to qualified immunity from damages. … Qualified immunity should be granted if the right asserted was not “clearly established” or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful. Romero v.

Baker v. City of Seatac

994 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity The principles of qualified immunity “shield an officer from personal liability when an officer reasonably believes that his or her conduct complies with the law.” Pearson v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-step sequence for resolving government official’s qualified immunity claims. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Deatherage v. Examining Bd. of Psychology

948 P.2d 828 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1997

The Board found Deatherage's failure to qualify statements, his mischaracterization of statements, his failure to verify information, and his interpretation of test data were adequate grounds for initiating disciplinary proceedings … A treatise on legal malpractice clearly explains the distinction: There are several significant differences between a civil malpractice action and a disciplinary proceeding.

Miguel v. Guess

112 Wash. App. 536 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 18, 2002

He cites Bator for the proposition that “[q]ualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, Bator held that no qualified immunity existed to protect the defendants from a suit alleging sexual harassment.

Alpental Community Club, Inc. v. Seattle Gymnastics Society

154 Wash. 2d 313 · Washington Supreme Court · May 12, 2005

Defendants are not immune from liability for nuisance pursuant to RCW Ch. 7.48 since the forest practice activity of defendants was not established prior to the establishment of the ACC residential subdivision.[ 7 ] The trial … When you read that definition, it clearly does not encompass the mere ownership of forest land.

Davis v. State

30 P.3d 460 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2001

recreational use immunity statutes. … use immunity statutes.

United States v. Manning

434 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 12, 2006

generated by the Navy that qualify as “mixed waste” under the CPA, until Hanford attains State-established cleanup levels for AEA materials (Section 4(6)); (3) bar the import of “mixed waste” to Hanford for a significant … Sovereign Immunity Because the Supremacy Clause immunizes the activities of the Federal government from State interference, direct state regulation of federal facilities is allowed only to the extent that Congress has clearly

Marin v. United States

814 F. Supp. 1468 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 3, 1992

The Taggart court, at page 216, 822 P.2d 243 , did hold that, in limited circumstances, state officers may be entitled to qualified immunity. … As such, the Agents and the Government are not entitled to qualified immunity under Washington State Law.

Fair v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2025

He also points out 22 that Baird waived appellate review of the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity 23 analysis by failing to address this issue in his motion for summary judgment. … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis as to Fair’s judicial 24 deception claim.

Nichols v. Snohomish County

47 Wash. App. 550 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 29, 1987

We thus reject the County's *557 immunity argument. … If he is not so qualified as a result of disability sustained during his service, or during the determination of his fitness for service, but is nevertheless qualified to perform the duties of another position, under the

Kilbourn v. City of Seattle

43 Wash. 2d 373 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1953

The hardships and injustices arising from the defense of governmental immunity — of which this case is typical— are unquestionably the reason some courts have from time to time permitted the transmutation of what are clearly … public policy should be by legislative enactment and not by the expedient of placing a “nuisance” label on what are clearly negligence actions.

Foxworthy v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Ass'n

141 Wash. App. 221 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 16, 2007

Thus, if Foxworthy is to sustain her cause of action, she must establish that Congress has impliedly abrogated tribal sovereign immunity. 3. … tribal casino instead of in a non-Indian establishment off the reservation.

Kelso v. City of Tacoma

63 Wash. 2d 913 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1964

This court has consistently held that the doctrine of governmental immunity is a matter of state policy which can be changed only by the legislature. This established pronouncement was recently stated in Kilbourn v. … The legislature has clearly indicated its intention to change the public policy of the state. The doctrine of gov *919 ernmental immunity was not preserved to the municipal branches of government.

State v. Tracy

147 P.3d 559 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2006

We conclude that she did not establish she was a "qualifying patient" entitled to present a compassionate use defense under RCW 69.51A.010(3). … As noted above, the ballot title of I-692 clearly covers Ms. Tracy and others like her.

Emsley v. Army National Guard

106 Wash. 2d 474 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1986

The National Guard may be ordered into active federal service pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 3500 , which establishes the grounds and procedures for such an order. … In order that a decision of a governmental official or agency qualify for immunity under the Evangelical exception, four questions must be affirmatively answered: (1) Does the challenged act . . . necessarily involve a basic