Case law

Nurre v. Whitehead

520 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2007

Whitehead to qualified immunity as an individual defendant, for the record, the Court also grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity for the separate reason that it was not clearly established that … Similarly, the Court concludes that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Establishment Clause claim because the Court has been unable to find authority clearly establishing that defendant was acting with

PANAGACOS v. Towery

782 F. Supp. 2d 1183 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2011

Qualified Immunity. … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine whether the constitutional rights at issue were clearly established when viewed in the specific context of the case.

City of Prosser v. Teamsters Union Local 839

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 19, 2022

Martin, 195 F.3d 1208, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that the relevant law was “clearly established” in the post-October 1994 time frame for purposes of defendant’s claim of qualified immunity); cf. Sampson v. … and by officials acting under color of state law. 7 Article I, section 12 states: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities

Logan v. City of Pullman

392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2005

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer. … In the absence of binding precedent, the Court looks to whatever law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and

Michael Segaline v. State Of Wa, Dept. Of L & I

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2017

If Alan Croft has qualified immunity as to the trespass notice he is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions that flowed from it. ... Absent a clearly established right, Mr. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability and money damages so long as "'their conduct does not violate clearly established ...

Wilson v. State

84 Wash. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1996

A plaintiff seeking to rebut a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity must demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct interfered with a clearly established constitutional right. White, 78 Wn. App. at 837 . … Thus, Wilson has failed to show that defendants interfered with his "clearly established” constitutional free speech rights. Consequently, the individual defendants may claim the defense of qualified immunity.

Tubar v. Clift

453 F. Supp. 2d 1252 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 22, 2006

This “qualified immunity” is determined in two steps. … Moreover, the officer in Acosta was denied qualified immunity because the law at the time of the incident in that case was also “clearly established.”

Emmanuel v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2020

Homchick’s failure to identify a protected liberty or property interest or an abuse of process also entitles Defendants to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … point to facts that support a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) 22 (discussing Saucier v.

Seaman v. Karr

114 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing *681 violates that right.

Hertog v. City of Seattle

138 Wash. 2d 265 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

State, 127 Wn.2d 434 , 899 P.2d 1270 (1995), that the qualified personal immunity for parole officers recognized in Taggart does not extend to the State. … If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not.

Shearer v. Tacoma School District No. 10

942 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 29, 2013

Jarvis is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated plaintiffs clearly established right to due process; (4) Dr. … Jarvis is not entitled to qualified immunity because he violated plaintiffs clearly established right to due process.

Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First *561 Amendment claim because “[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one’s supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the “law clearly proscribed the actions” they took.

Musso-Escude v. Edwards

101 Wash. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2000

is alleged. 22 Qualified immunity protects an official only for those acts done in good faith. 23 In general, executive branch officials are afforded qualified immunity. 24 *569 Where a state actor claims immunity against … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or

Bender v. City of Seattle

99 Wash. 2d 582 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 1983

We believe a qualified privilege will adequately protect police officers in releasing information to the public and press. It is then the plaintiff's burden to establish an abuse of that qualified privilege to recover. … Seattle Times, supra at 492 n.5, proof of an abuse of a qualified privilege must be established by clear and convincing evidence, not simply by a preponderance of the evidence.

Babcock v. State

116 Wash. 2d 596 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1991

Lack of malice is necessary but not sufficient to establish qualified i immunity under Guffey . Caseworkers cannot claim even a qualified immunity when they fail to follow statutory procedures. … We do not think that ex parte orders can establish quasi-judicial immunity for those carrying them out. Ex parte orders do not offer sufficient procedural protections to warrant the establishment of absolute immunity.

Savage v. State

127 Wash. 2d 434 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1995

I Qualified Personal Immunity In Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992), we held that parole officers have qualified immunity for allegedly negligent supervision of parolees who harm third parties. … agent enjoys qualified personal immunity.

Musso-Escude v. Edwards

4 P.3d 151 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2000

is alleged. [22] Qualified immunity protects an official only for those acts done in *156 good faith. [23] In general, executive branch officials are afforded qualified immunity. [24] Where a state actor claims immunity … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or

Seaman v. Karr

59 P.3d 701 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, "clearly established" means: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Smith v. Blodgett

798 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 8, 1992

Defendant moved to dismiss this Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the law was not clearly established that Washington’s administrative segregation regulations created a liberty interest protected … The court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Anderson v. City of Bellevue

862 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 23, 2012

Qualified Immunity The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … was clearly established at the time of the violation.