Case law

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.

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.

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

Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue

120 Wash. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2004

Because the communication was made to a private newspaper, RCW 4.24.510 clearly did not apply. … Additionally, because RCW 4.24.510 clearly did not apply because the communication was not to a governmental agency, analyzing whether the statute excludes immunity for governmental entities was not central to the court’s

Baker v. O'Reilly

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 10, 2023

Second, Defendants 22 claim that the R&R erred in finding “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes. 23 (Id. at 4.) … 16 for qualified immunity purposes.

Hawn v. Clallam County Jail

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2025

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity “generally 13 turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal 14 rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken … as a matter of law 12 based on qualified immunity.

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

Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce County

158 P.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 22, 2007

These bond companies are justified by the Superior Court through an established process designed to show that the company is qualified to conduct business in this field. … McAllister implies that Signature had authority because "[t]hese bond companies are justified by the Superior Court through an established process designed to show that the company is qualified to conduct business in this

Mission Springs Inc. v. City of Spokane

954 P.2d 250 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1998

Municipalities enjoy no qualified immunity from suit. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980); Robinson v. … City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980). [22] The trial court did not address qualified immunity; neither should we.

Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. BRAZIER CONSTR.

103 Wash. 2d 111 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1984

STATE IMMUNITY FROM LIMITATION PERIODS [1] The State, acting in its sovereign capacity, is immune from the application of limitation periods to actions brought for the benefit of the State. Tacoma v. … Clearly this would frustrate the policy of settling estates and distributing a decedent's property to designated heirs.

Roberts v. Khounphixay

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 22, 2021

Khounphixay’s Qualified Immunity 12 Khounphixay appeals the Court’s Order denying summary judgment and rejecting her 13 argument that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established 4 “[The Ninth Circuit] may properly review a denial of qualified immunity where a 5 defendant argues . . . that the facts, even when considered in

Jewels v. City Of Bellingham

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2015

It ruled that Jewels had failed to establish a material ' . . … obvious and clearly visible.

Chambers-Castanes v. King County

100 Wash. 2d 275 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1983

While this may be true in a broad sense, we have consistently held that absent a clear legislative intent or clearly enunciated policy to the contrary, these duties are owed to the public at large and are unenforceable as … All we need decide is whether the facts described, if established, would entitle appellants to relief under the allegations in their complaints. (Footnote omitted.) See also Grimsby v.

Babcock v. State

112 Wash. 2d 83 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1989

Ct. 1108 (1983). 2 *98 The defendants contend that these cases establish two separate grounds of immunity. … The Defendants in This Case Are Immune In deciding whether immunity is appropriate in this case, the question is whether the proceedings established for dependency cases by RCW 13.34 are adversarial proceedings in need of

Thurston County v. Tenino Stone Quarries, Inc.

44 Wash. 351 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1906

This is true; but the nature of the subj ect-matter makes it essential that arbitrary limits should be established. … By reason of these personal guaranties and benefits, it asks a tribute toward the support of the government from those beneficiaries who are physically qualified to contribute.

Cosro, Inc. v. Liquor Control Board

107 Wash. 2d 754 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1987

The requirements of this "privileges or immunities" clause "are in most cases at least as stringent as those of the federal equal protection clause. … To show a violation of the equal protection clause, a party must first establish that the challenged act treats unequally two similarly situated classes of people. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 423 , 69 L.

City of Spokane v. Coon

3 Wash. 2d 243 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1940

State, 197 Wash. 79 , 84 P. (2d) 372 , “Every reasonable presumption must be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of this statute, and the burden rests upon appellant to establish clearly its invalidity.” … I, § 12, of the state constitution, prohibiting the granting of special privileges and immunities; Kaufman v.

State v. Chamberlain

132 Wash. 520 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1925

That Sec. 4, ch. 126 of the Laws of Washington, 1921 contravenes section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in that it abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States … An attorney and counsellor at law must be qualified according to, and admitted to practice under, the provisions of §§ 118 to 139-23, Rem. Comp. Stat. [P.

Alcantar v. City of Centralia

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 2, 2023

Courts may grant qualified 6 immunity on the ground that a purported right was not clearly established by prior case law. 7 Reichle, 566 U.S. at 664. 8 Plaintiffs … Villegas, 541 F.3d at 957. 19 However, where qualified immunity determinations rest solely on the “clearly 20 established” prong, Monell liability may still lie if such a constitutional violation occurred. 21