Case law

SATNAM S. RANDHAWA v. PHILIP MARKER and MARK FOSTER

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 14, 2026

The Court’s 25 qualified immunity analysis may proceed in any order. … Moreover, 15 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established 16 that a one-time employment decision based on suspected food theft would amount 17 to a constitutional violation.

Swanson v. McKain

59 Wash. App. 303 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 1990

We conclude from these authorities that the significant factor which establishes an entrant upon real property as a business visitor, for purposes of qualifying that person as *309 an invitee, is whether the entrant was invited … The rationale for the court's imposition of a duty to warn of natural conditions in Tarshis clearly stemmed from the plaintiff's status as an invitee of the hotel.

State v. Martinez

85 Wash. 2d 671 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1975

In assessing this claim, the touchstone for our analysis is the due process clause which commands that the prohibitions of a penal statute be clearly drawn and defined as to standards of guilt. … Even if such picketing is disruptive of the educational environment or violent, the parents are immunized from prosecution by the terms of RCW 9.87.010(13).

Gontmakher v. the City of Bellevue

85 P.3d 926 · 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

Eggert v. City of Seattle

81 Wash. 2d 840 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1973

of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental .. . … It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. . . .

Pruitt v. City of Edmonds

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 1, 2024

Government officials are not entitled to qualified immunity as to 4 disparate treatment claims because a reasonable person would be aware that racial discrimination violates clearly established rights. … The City itself has no right to qualified immunity; only Nelson 7 can assert qualified immunity. Nelson is not entitled to qualified immunity because he is accused of intentional race discrimination.

Human Rights Defense Center v. Uttecht

District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 5, 2024

ECF No. 85 at 7. 10 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless 11 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly 9 established constitutional right – when the officer should have known he was 10 violating the Constitution – does he forfeit qualified immunity.”

Karr v. State

53 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 19, 1988

It was clearly stated in the USGS material that an avalanche represented the most serious potential hazard posed by the volcano. … If all four questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, then the act or decision can be classified as a discretionary governmental function and nontortious.

LaFreniere

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

Everett are entitled to qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified 14 immunity, the plaintiff must show the defendant “(1) ‘violated a federal statutory or 15 constitutional right’ and (2) ‘the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at 16 the

Employco Personnel Services, Inc. v. City of Seattle

117 Wash. 2d 606 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1991

Second, it argues that the limitation on liability clearly applies to damages from power interruptions which allegedly resulted from the City's negligence. … The Legislature in RCW 35.21.415 declined to grant immunity to cities or towns. 11 In viewing the statutory scheme as a whole, the conclusion is reached that the Legislature clearly did not intend that the City of Seattle

Seafirst Corp. v. Jenkins

644 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 20, 1986

In the court’s opinion, there is clearly an issue of fact concerning the adequacy of the notice which Andersen gave. … Love’s expert opinion contradicting Andersen’s contention, there does exist a factual issue which clearly renders summary judgment on this issue inappropriate.

Longacre v. Smarr

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 13, 2019

Qualified Immunity Bars Longacre’s Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 20 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 21 unless their conduct violates clearly established … Trooper Smarr Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity 13 Qualified immunity bars suits under § 1983 unless the conduct at issue violates clearly 14 established rights which a reasonable officer would

Flying T Ranch, Inc., V. Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2024

In the absence of comprehensive legislation by Congress regulating tribal sovereign immunity, the United States Supreme Court has upheld tribal sovereign immunity for claims for which the FSIA clearly waived foreign nations … It is clearly necessary that the territorial sovereign reserve the authority to determine title disputes notwithstanding a foreign putative owner’s claims of immunity, because the operation of the local action rule would

Reed v. Kariko

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

The 9 R&R does not address Defendants’ additional argument that, even if their conduct was 10 constitutionally deficient, the violations were not clearly established, and they are entitled 11 to qualified immunity. … A two-part 4 test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged 5 facts that “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at 6 issue was clearly

Nelson v. Thurston County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 1, 2020

does not 13 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 14 have known.” … A two-part test resolves claims of 15 qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have shown facts that “make out a 16 violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at issue was ‘clearly

Eastham v. Arndt

28 Wash. App. 524 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 2, 1981

The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself—his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. … Ct. 438 , 19 A.L.R.2d 378 ] (1951), and to require him to answer if "it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken." Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 899 (1881).

Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent

180 Wash. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 31, 2014

E2SSB 5073, § 102. ¶7 As drafted by the legislature, E2SSB 5073 established a state-run registry system for qualified patients and providers. … affirmative defenses for a qualifying patient or designated provider who is- not registered with the registry established in section 901.

Jewels v. City of Bellingham

183 Wash. 2d 388 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2015

It ruled that Jewels had failed to establish a material issue of fact that the water diverter was latent: I agree that when it wasn’t painted, it wasn’t as obvious as the yellow speed bump. … obvious and clearly visible.

Rice

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 23, 2026

right was 10 clearly established at the time of the violation. … Moreover, Defendants Ririe 27 and Daniels are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established 28 that a failure to provide additional testing, an additional mattress, a specific brace, 1 or even

Lukich v. Department of Labor & Industries

176 Wash. 221 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1934

1613, and article 1 thereof reads as follows: “There shall be reciprocally full and entire liberty of commerce and navigation between the citizens and subjects of the two high contracting powers, who shall be at liberty to establish … True, the word “industry” *231 is used, but in tbe context it clearly appears that this word was employed in connection with commerce and not with labor.