Case law

Doty v. Town of South Prairie

120 P.3d 941 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2005

Second, if a volunteer does qualify under RCW 51.12.035, it only provides eligibility for medical aid benefits. Coverage is not comprehensive, and immunity from liability does not attach. … In short, pension benefits do not qualify as consideration like in nature to IIA wages.

Rodarte v. Skagit County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 30, 2021

that right was clearly established at the time of 25 the incident.” … show [that] the [defendants'] conduct violated a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘the right 10 was clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.”)

Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee

214 F. Supp. 2d 1103 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 10, 2002

On a motion for summary judgment based on immunity, where the parties do not dispute the material issues of fact, a district court may establish as a matter of law that immunity protects a defendant from damages liability … Since absolute immunity applies to all of the claims against him in the § 1983 action, the defenses of collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel, qualified immunity and proximate cause do not require address in this context.

Bultena v. Wash. State Dep't of Agric.

319 F. Supp. 3d 1215 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 30, 2018

The parties agree that the Department, a state agency, is immune from suit for damages under the FMLA. However the Department does not assert immunity from the WLFA and argues the claim on the merits. … Because the Department does not raise immunity, the Court will assess the WFLA claim on the merits.

Baer v. Abel

648 F. Supp. 69 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 21, 1986

In opposition, plaintiffs contend that Congress waived FSLIC’s sovereign immunity when it allowed FSLIC to sue or be sued, 12 U.S.C. § 1725 , and concurrently established federal court jurisdiction over actions to which FSLIC … However, this case clearly falls within the rationale of Fahey v.

Foxworthy v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Ass'n

169 P.3d 53 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 30, 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.

Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg

50 P.3d 266 · 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 *272 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

Keller v. City of Spokane

146 Wash. 2d 237 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2002

“Rather, recovery is now permitted where it was previously denied after liability has been established.” Id. … App. at 267-68 (interpreting Hansen as qualifying municipalities’ duty to apply only to those using roadways in proper manner).

Wright v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 27, 2025

He also argued that Defendants were not 23 entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … A 6 public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for 7 damages, provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or 8 constitutional

Shirley v. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

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

Qualified immunity protects 3 “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not 4 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “To determine whether a constitutional right has been clearly 13 established for qualified immunity purposes,” the court “must survey the legal landscape and 14 examine those cases that are most like the instant case.

Benshoof v. Ferguson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 12, 2024

immunity or qualified immunity as an 12 attorney representing governmental actors, Seattle Public Schools and Narver. … Plaintiff has not identified any 11 cases demonstrating that the law was clearly established as to any of the alleged constitutional 12. || Violations.

Emmerson v. Weilep

126 Wash. App. 930 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2005

Weilep points out the text of RCW 4.24.510 expressly provides for immunity from “civil liability,” as opposed to immunity from a civil action for damages, its meaning must be construed in the context of the statutory scheme … Here, the legislative purpose gives qualifying parties immunity *937 from “civil action[s] for damages,” (RCW 4.24.500) and the statutory intent language discusses liability in terms of a “civil complaint or counterclaim

Minton v. Ralston Purina Co.

47 P.3d 556 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2002

In this case, Interstate qualified as a self-insurer in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Ch. 51.14 RCW. … However, Interstate, as the parent corporation, would be immune from suit by a Continental employee.

State v. Bryant

97 Wash. App. 479 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 20, 1999

Prior to trial, 1 Bryant moved to dismiss the charges against him on the theory that the State could not establish that he was being prosecuted independently of statements he made under the immunity agreement. … We will uphold these findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 33 Jonathan Crane, a Mercer Island detective, testified that *493 Bryant approached Crane in 1994 to ask for immunity in exchange for information.

Eidenmuller

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

) that the right was 10 clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … The 14 claims fail at the second prong—whether a right was clearly established. 15 “A right is clearly established when it is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official 16 would have understood that what

Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 11, 2025

immunity because “[t]here is no clearly established law that 13 students cannot be compelled to write essays.” … established right. 20 In the absence of Plaintiff identifying a clearly established right that Defendants violated, 21 the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First Amendment

United States v. Washington

66 F.R.D. 477 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 16, 1974

The various motions of the tribal plaintiffs do not clearly establish whether these motions are intended to be against defendant Washington Reef Net Owners Association. … A reading of the opinion does not clearly establish whether the defendant state officers were sued in their official capacity, but in any event, the court ordered reapportionment and awarded attorneys’ fees, relying not on

Washington State School Directors Ass'n v. Department of Labor & Industries

82 Wash. 2d 367 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1973

The provision in question is RCW 51.14.020, which provides: (1) An employer may qualify as a self-insurer by establishing to the director’s satisfaction that he has sufficient financial ability to make certain the prompt … Neither the equal protection clause nor the privileges and immunities clause requires perfection in legislative classification.

Minton v. Ralston Purina Co.

146 Wash. 2d 385 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2002

In this case, Interstate qualified as a self-insurer in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Ch. 51.14 RCW. … However, Interstate, as the parent corporation, would be immune from suit by a Continental employee.

Tron-Haukebo v. Clallam County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 20, 2024

be dismissed because Defendants are 12 entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law 12 Under the second prong of qualified immunity, if the Court finds a deprivation of a 13 constitutional or statutory right the Court must determine