Case law

Hanks v. Clark County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 19, 2023

violation, the Court skips to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis— 2 whether the rights at issue were clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have 3 understood their conduct to be unlawful … 13 “In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including 23

Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State

152 Wash. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 10, 2009

WSDOT countered that *203 the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred interest on the award of relocation benefits. … WSDOT denied reimbursement for the substitute equipment because it determined that the equipment at issue was real property and therefore did not qualify for relocation assistance.

Bell v. City of Lacey

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 18, 2020

22 immunity because it was not (and is not) clearly established that the JSA violated the 23 Constitution. … A two-part test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs 17 have alleged facts that “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the 18 “right at issue was ‘clearly

Matheson v. Kinnear

393 F. Supp. 1025 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 28, 1975

Clearly the statutory pattern provides for notice and judicial review of the questions pertaining to the legality of the seizure and sale of the cigarettes as contraband. … Congress itself felt it necessary to address the immunity question and to provide tax immunity to the extent it deemed desireable [sic].

Arntsen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 31, 2026

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis provides that defendants are 9 entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or 10 constitutional rights of which a … Thus, alternatively, the Court should find Defendant is entitled to 20 qualified immunity on this claim as Plaintiff fails to show Defendant Siek’s actions violated a 21 clearly established statutory or constitutional

Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management (Colorado), LLC

152 Wash. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 15, 2009

assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such *398 charges by proof of his or her compliance with the requirements provided in this chapter … Thus, Roe cannot establish the clarity element necessary to support her wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim and it fails. ¶26 MUMA provides qualifying medical users only a defense to criminal prosecution

Schroeder v. Weighall

179 Wash. 2d 566 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 16, 2014

While the statute clearly confers a benefit on one group of citizens, it also has the potential to burden a particularly vulnerable minority. … Those cases clearly establish that we apply intermediate scrutiny to laws that burden both “ ‘ “an important right and a semi-suspect class not accountable for its status.” ’ ” Id.

Flying T Ranch, Inc. v. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 9, 2025

Congress has not clearly indicated its intent to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity here; therefore, we affirm the Court of Appeals. … CONCLUSION Federal common law has long established that tribes are immune from suit and may be sued only where a tribe waives its immunity or when Congress has unequivocally abrogated immunity.

Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management

216 P.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 15, 2009

assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such charges by proof of his or her compliance with the requirements provided in this chapter. … Thus, Roe cannot establish the clarity element necessary to support her wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim and it fails. ¶ 26 MUMA provides qualifying medical users only a defense to criminal prosecution

B.S. v. Department of Social & Health Services

94 Wash. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 9, 1999

B.S. and L.S. are contending that they should be immunized from termination because the unavailability of a single offered service makes it impossible to prove RCW 13.34.180(4). … The term “conditions” clearly refers to present and continuing objective deficits in B.S.’s and L.S.’s parenting skills.

Jenkins v. Washington

46 F. Supp. 3d 1110 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 29, 2014

Unlike traditional gambling establishments, Beteha gave losing bettors the option of not paying their debts. (Id. at 4.) … Plaintiff relies upon In re Lazar, 237 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.2001), in which the Ninth Circuit discussed the extent to which a state waives its immunity by filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy action, as established in Gardner

State v. Constantine

182 Wash. App. 635 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 31, 2014

Constantine stated in her motion that she was not asserting an affirmative defense based on her individual status as a qualifying patient, she nevertheless presented two authorization documents to establish her qualifying … These buildings were on a clearly defined living compound owned by Mr. Davis.

Jennifer Jo Dare Medlin v. Andrew Allen Miller

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 16, 2026

But it is “ ‘well established that the privilege protects against real dangers, not remote and speculative possibilities.’ ” Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 34 Wn. … For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority but write separately to express my view that we should clearly disavow the portion of Flannery holding 11 It is arguably unlikely

Hadley v. Washington State Patrol

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 14, 2025

They argue that lethal force was reasonable, and that 3 qualified immunity protects them from suit because plaintiffs cannot show that they 4 violated a clearly established right. … A two-part test resolves 5 claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that 6 “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at issue was 7 ‘clearly

United States v. Simon

146 F. 89 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 1, 1906

The statute is mandatory and absolute; that is to say, without any qualifying phrase or exception, it declares that no testimony given by a bankrupt shall be offered in evidence, against him in any criminal proceeding. … Montana establishes another proposition, viz.: Unless the bankrupt claims the protection of the provision in section seven (9) by objecting to the introduction of testimony given by him in his bankruptcy proceedings, such

McQueen v. Kittitas County

115 Wash. 672 · Washington Supreme Court · May 23, 1921

“(c) Because it takes the property of one class of citizens without due process of law and grants immunities to one class of citizens and is unequal in its application on all classes of citizens, in contravention of Sec. … Such legislation is clearly within the police power of the state.

Brown v. MacPherson's, Inc.

85 Wash. 2d 17 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1975

Many of the provisions of that act were clearly inspired by the tragedies which gave rise to these cases. … State, supra at 834), and the qualified constitutional privilege given comment on matters of public interest ( Rosenbloom v.

Clarke v. Shoreline School District No. 412

106 Wash. 2d 102 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1986

II On appeal to the Superior Court, the trial court entered a conclusion of law that the "clearly erroneous" standard of judicial review applied in determining whether the hearing officer's findings of fact established sufficient … Furthermore, Dean does not require the School District to create a position for Clarke for which he is not qualified, or to hire Clarke over a more qualified person.

Gossett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington

948 P.2d 1264 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1997

They clearly did not purchase the property. Instead, they assigned "all interest" in their purchase and sale agreement to Trusty Deed. CP at 86. … Corporations are clearly entitled to the same privileges and immunities as individual persons, but this does not explain why any enhanced protection should be considered under the state constitution.

Carlson

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

Plaintiffs’ individual capacity claims should be 8 dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … But the Supreme Court 14 has “repeatedly told courts—and the Ninth Circuit in particular—not to define 15 clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Kisela v.