Case law

Zayas v. Boyett

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 24, 2021

Because qualified immunity is an 12 13 immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, this question should be resolved at the 14 … the 17 right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of a defendant's alleged misconduct.

Richey v. Aiyeku

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 19, 2021

The district court may analyze either prong of qualified immunity first. … not clearly established as retaliatory. 8 Therefore, the second prong of qualified immunity, a violation of clearly 9 established law, has not been met, and Defendants are entitled to qualified 10 immunity in the

Baer v. Abel

637 F. Supp. 347 · 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.

State v. Decker

68 Wash. App. 246 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 31, 1992

Escoto , at 7 (quoting RCW 13.40.140(8)). *250 Escoto clearly sanctions the use of presentencing psychological evaluations in noncapital juvenile cases. See Escoto, at 6-7. … We conclude that the law established by cases dealing with presentencing interviews should be applied to the present case.

Barry v. USAA

98 Wash. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 9, 1999

Even privileged communications may be discoverable, however, if they qualify for the fraud exception. Escalante, 49 Wn. App. at 394 . … Washington courts recognize no work product immunity for documents prepared in the regular course of *208 business. Escalante, 49 Wn. App. at 395 .

Richmond v. Thompson

922 P.2d 1343 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1996

New York Times, however, established a qualified privilege under the First Amendment for statements concerning public officials. … I, § 5 did not grant absolute immunity. Wilson, 137 Wash. at 133 , 241 P. 970 .

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.

Department of Revenue v. Nord Northwest Corp.

164 Wash. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 17, 2011

Under Washington law, a real property title transfer does not always establish property ownership. … While the parties clearly intended Nord to *234 control the development project and sought tax advantages, the record indicates they intended the LLCs, as separate entities, to own the properties. ¶40 Based on the reasons

Kottler v. State

136 Wash. 2d 437 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1998

To qualify for this exception the original party must be fault-free and both parties to the contribution action must have been defendants against whom judgment was entered in the underlying action. … (c) Nothing in this section shall affect any cause of action arising from the manufacture or marketing of a fungible product in a generic form which contains no clearly identifiable shape, color, or marking.

Hauber v. Yakima County

147 Wash. 2d 655 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2002

The legislature clearly intended to forge a compromise similar to the one in the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. … The Legislature clearly intended for such agreements to be formal and specific. See also WAC 118-30-060 (detailing requirements for emergency management plans and mutual aid plans).

Torrescano v. Goodwater

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 8, 2022

1 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless 2 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 3 which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendant Goodwater’s dealings with Plaintiff did not violate any 15 clearly established right.

In Re the Marriage of Parker

91 Wash. App. 219 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 26, 1998

Caron, 142 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998) (plethysmograph test of professional licensee was not, under the circumstances, so unreasonable as to establish a violation of “clearly established” law for purposes of piercing qualified … immunity in a civil rights suit.). 14 See, e.g., Gentry v.

Cheesman v. Ellensburg, City of

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 2, 2020

Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. 17 Under the qualified immunity analysis, a “clearly established right” is one 18 that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable officer would have understood that … It is not clearly 4 established that a parent has a constitutional right to obtain a second medical 5 examination, nor is it clearly established that Defendant Week should have 6 prevented CPS from taking their children

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

Hanson v. Carmona

Washington Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2023

specified height spanning public highways, or a statute providing conditional immunity for the release of information regarding sex offenders, or a statute granting qualified immunity to municipal employees … I recognize that the terms have not always been clearly defined.

Joseph v. Amazon.com, Inc.

46 F. Supp. 3d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 28, 2014

In sum, the Court concludes that Amazon is entitled to § 230 immunity for Plaintiffs “libel/defamation/slander/trade libel” claim. E. … Joseph has been paid for all qualifying purchases under the Associates program, including $2,678.45 in advertising fees for 1,971 qualifying purchases. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Amazon is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

McCarver v. Manson Park and Recreation District

92 Wash. 2d 370 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1979

Although the record fails to clearly identify the owner of the parkland and water areas (there is some indication that ownership is in the United States Government), it is clear that Manson Park has the exclusive right of … Clearly, the statute, as amended, includes public landowners and occupiers within the recreational use immunity from liability.

GRANT CTY. FIRE PROT. DIST. v. City of Moses Lake

150 Wash. 2d 791 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2004

The property owners have not established any right that constitutes a privilege within the meaning of the privileges and immunities clause. … than every public benefit established by positive law."

State v. Matson

22 Wash. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 6, 1978

Walker, 82 Wn.2d 851 , 514 P.2d 919 (1973) established that a showing that the defendant was an agent solely of the purchaser and not of the seller in a drug transaction was a defense to prosecution under the uniform narcotic … An examination of this statute clearly leads to the conclusion that the making of a motion to grant immunity *120 must be left to the discretion of the State's representative.

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