Case law

City of Wenatchee v. Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1

181 Wash. App. 326 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 20, 2014

It argues that the court more clearly expressed the principle of law necessary to its disposition when it said: [Algona] argues that governmental immunity should not apply because the [King] County operation of a solid waste … Seattle Popular Monorail Authority, 156 Wn.2d 752, 758 , 131 P.3d 892 (2006), our Supreme Court stated that the provision “clearly establishes that the state legislature may delegate to the corporate authorities of municipalities

Fox v. Fort

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 22, 2022

No. 1 at 7.) 9 Fort argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly 10 established right. (Dkt. No. 20 at 16.) … Fort, therefore, is 16 entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established right. 17 IV.

Adamson

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 6, 2026

,” 18 and (2) “whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Although the qualified immunity doctrine does not 22 “require a case directly on point” to show that a right is clearly established, “existing precedent 23 must have placed the statutory or constitutional question

Lundgren v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe

187 Wash. 2d 857 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2017

Both parties recognized the fence as the boundary line and that it had clearly been on the property for much longer than the necessary 10 years. … County of Yakima, Anderson, and Smale establish the principle that our superior courts have subject matter jurisdiction over in rem proceedings in certain situations where claims of sovereign immunity are asserted. II.

United States v. City of Spokane

734 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 31, 1989

Although there is no simple test for ascertaining whether an institution is so closely related to governmental activity as to become a tax-immune instrumentality, the Red Cross is clearly such an instrumentality. … Id. at 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. at 355-56 . (1) The court finds that granting tax immunity to a function of the Red Cross will not establish a new principle of law in light of Department of Employment v.

Anica v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

84 P.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 24, 2004

Next, Anica claims that despite the Washington Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), Wal-Mart does not enjoy immunity from her lawsuit. … individuals on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. [47] Congress therefore incorporated in IRCA protections for "protected individuals." [48] Anica would derive no benefit even if we were to recognize a clearly

Tardiff v. Shoreline School District

68 Wash. 2d 164 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1966

If the two acts are so clearly inconsistent with and repugnant to each other that they cannot by fair and reasonable construction be reconciled ánd both be given effect. … Nothing is stated therein which might have any bearing upon the statute establishing immunity of school districts.

Ewalan v. Schreiber

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 17, 2024

Ewalan objected to the proposed 6 instruction, correctly arguing that it would have improperly submitted the “clearly 7 established” prong of qualified immunity to the jury. (Id. at 65.) … To the contrary, because Defendants 3 properly pled and preserved their qualified immunity defense, Mr. Ewalan then bore the 4 burden to prove the violation of a clearly established right. See Mason v.

Neaman v. Washington State Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2025

‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … The “clearly established” standard requires that legal principles clearly prohibit 18 the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him.

Stenson v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2024

Legal Standard 7 Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages 8 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … No Qualified Immunity for Excessive Force Claim 13 The Parties dispute whether the law is clearly established that Leenstra acted in violation 14 of the Fourth Amendment by shooting Sarrett without

Babcock v. Mason County Fire Dist. No. 6

30 P.3d 1261 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2001

In this case, as in those cases, privity was established by the nature of the contact. … State, 118 Wash.2d 195, 229 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992). [15] Because of the discretionary and policy making functions of government, I would retain our absolute and qualified immunity jurisprudence.

Rehn

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 28, 2025

of a constitutional right, or no violation 17 of a right that is clearly established in law.” … Defendants argue “the Court and Plaintiff 5 defined the breadth of the Fourth Amendment right at issue too broadly” and there is no 6 clearly established law that prohibited the Officer Defendants’ entry into Ms.

Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation

130 Wash. 2d 862 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1996

consider in personam jurisdiction, immunity and *877 waiver. … State of Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009 , 1014-16 (8th Cir. 1981) (tribe waived sovereign immunity by intervening in a law suit); McClendon, 885 F.2d at 630 ("Initiation of a lawsuit necessarily establishes [tribal] consent to the

Johnston v. Howard

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 6, 2023

The Qualified Immunity Standard 18 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim for damages unless 19 the plaintiff raises a genuine issue of fact showing … To defeat the defense of qualified immunity, the 1 plaintiff bears the burden of proving that “the [officers’] specific conduct violated clearly 2 established federal law” by “point[ing] to prior case law that articulates

Freehe v. Freehe

81 Wash. 2d 183 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1972

The case which apparently established the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity in Washington is Schultz v. Christopher, 65 Wash. 496 , 118 P. 629 (1911). … The tortfeasor, though perhaps not quite himself or herself at the time of the tort, is clearly not one with the injured spouse.

Sutton v. Spokane Union Stockyards

124 Wash. 209 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1923

. — The respondent is conducting a public stockyard in which it is handling an interstate business, and, pursuant to the requirements of the Federal government, has provided an immunizing and vaccinating pen for the treatment … There was no proof offered, nor is there any suggestion, that the veterinarian selected by the respondent is not thoroughly qualified and competent.

Tatyana Mason, V John Mason And Laurie Robertson

497 P.3d 431 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 19, 2021

The trial court was “persuaded that [Tatyana had] difficulty understanding and communicating in English,” and that she “clearly benefited from the provision of interpretive services.” Id. at 87. … Discussing Ninth Circuit cases pertaining to qualified immunity including Lanuza v. Love, 899 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2018) and 27 No. 51642-0-II Reynaga Hernandez v.

Hildahl v. Bringolf

5 P.3d 38 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 28, 2000

The Act established "a system of compulsory state industrial insurance," under which "all awards are paid from the accident fund." Greenleaf v. … into the state industrial insurance fund. [17] Nor was Bringolf a qualified self-insurer. [18] U.S.

Kane

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 13, 2026

When 23 defendants assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. … : (1) 6 defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly 7 established.

Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg

112 Wash. App. 501 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 15, 2002

The court below had decided that even if Wyatt and his attorney acted under color of law, they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because they relied on the statute prior to its invalidation. … The Supreme Court reversed and held that private parties who invoke state replevin, garnishment or attachment statutes that are later declared unconstitutional are not entitled to either immunity or qualified immunity from