Case law

Redmond v. Birrenkott

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 20, 2019

Courts 3 evaluate claims of qualified immunity by considering (1) whether “the facts alleged 4 show the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and (2) whether “the right 5 was clearly established” when … A right is clearly 7 established if “a reasonable public official would know that his or her specific 8 conduct violated clearly established rights[.]” Cunningham v.

Hartman v. State of Washington Department of Children Youth and Families

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 10, 2025

In resolving a government official’s claim of qualified immunity, a court 14 must decide whether (1) there is a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the 15 right at issue was “clearly established[.]” … For purposes of a qualified immunity 11 analysis, the law is clearly established that extra-judicial removal is prohibited absent 12 reasonable cause and a reasonably necessary scope. See Rogers v.

Banks v. Huehnerhoff

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 5, 2021

. § 1983, 21 qualified and judicial immunity bar plaintiff’s claims. … not violate clearly 21 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” 22 Scott v.

Wright v. Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp.

127 Wash. App. 644 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 23, 2005

Because the dispute did not clearly arise either *653 on or off the reservation, the court applied Montana and held that the negligible threat to tribal self-government, coupled with the state’s interest in enforcing contracts … The United States Supreme Court has not established a test. See, e.g., EEOC v. Karuk Tribe Hous.

Michaels v. CH2M Hill, Inc.

257 P.3d 532 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 2011

Clearly, if no construction was occurring on the campus, the immunity provisions of RCW 51.24.035 would not be at issue. CH2M's contract with the city contemplated at least two main activities. … The immunity statute at issue addresses both historical bases for liability; it protects design professionals from general liability for work site safety (unless assumed by contract) but clearly recognizes common law liability

Christie v. State of Washington Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 26, 2024

Although the qualified immunity 24 doctrine does not “require a case directly on point” to show that a right is clearly established, 1 “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond … But because Anthony died less 15 than two years earlier, before the Gordon II court clarified that this right was “clearly 16 established,” qualified immunity takes that decision away from the jury, and the Section

Tolbert v. Weyrich

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 10, 2025

An officer is entitled to qualified 7 immunity as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 8 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity if the alleged violation was not a clearly 10 established constitutional or statutory violation.

In re Salary of Superior Court Judges

82 Wash. 623 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1914

The'fifth section provides that “There shall be in each of the organized counties of this state a superior court, for which at least one judge shall be elected by the qualified electors of the county at the general state … A section of the act provided, “that the salaries of the judges and chancellors of the several courts established by this act shall be the same as for the circuit judges and chancellors as established by law, each to be paid

State v. Unga

196 P.3d 645 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 26, 2008

Unga was clearly aware that he was being questioned as a suspect in the commission of criminal activity. ¶ 29 The questioning was of short duration, lasting only 30 minutes. … Broadaway, 133 Wash.2d 118, 132 , 942 P.2d 363 (1997) (establishing the "totality of the circumstances" and stating, "[t]he court must determine whether there is a causal relationship between the promise and the confession

Curtis v. Inslee

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2023

For 3 purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when it is sufficiently clear that 4 every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” … Inslee is entitled to qualified immunity on all the federal claims. 16 D.

Rideau v. Cort Furniture Rental

110 Wash. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 11, 2002

We find that the case law is clear; both control of the employer and consent of the employee are required to establish an employment relationship. … With respect to consent, there must be clear evidence of a mutual agreement between the employee and employer such that the employee has clearly consented to be the “employee” of the “employer.” 24 An employee’s subjective

Langfitt v. Pierce County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 31, 2021

right was clearly 4 established when viewed in the specific context of the case. … On the record, Defendants 14 have not established that Edwards’s entitlement to qualified immunity may be established 15 on the pleadings; the parties dispute the factual circumstances of the shooting.

Wright v. Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp.

111 P.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 23, 2005

Because the dispute did not clearly arise either on or off the reservation, the court applied Montana and held that the negligible threat to tribal self-government, coupled with the state's interest in enforcing contracts … The United States Supreme Court has not established a test. [7] See, e.g., EEOC v. Karuk Tribe Hous.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. State

44 Wash. 2d 339 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1954

(2) If Du Pont was an independent contractor rather than an agent, do these contract provisions nevertheless establish a special relationship between the contractor and the government, whereby the contractor became immune … But, as established by those decisions, their function was not to establish tax immunity, and they did not effectuate that result.

Townsel v. Whitney

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 10, 2025

However, qualified immunity shields 17 government actors from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly 18 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 19 have known … Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil 5 damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or 6 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Navarrete

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 22, 2025

He argued that 2 while Navarrete’s constitutional rights were clearly established, he did not violate 3 them, as a matter of law. 4 On October 8, 2025, the Court … If a district court’s rejection of a qualified-immunity defense rests on a 16 question of law, then its decision is immediately appealable. Williams v.

Ducote v. DSHS

222 P.3d 785 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2009

Zellmer, 164 Wash.2d 147, 169 , 188 P.3d 497 (2008), we recently held the parental immunity doctrine applied to stepparents standing in loco parentis. … investigation of a stepparent who is integrated into the child's life and home will be just as disruptive to the child and the family as a negligent investigation of a parent whose legal rights have already been formally established

Nelson v. Thurston County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 7, 2020

Second, Snaza contends that Nelson 4 failed to show that his due process claim is based on a clearly established right, and, 5 consequently, the Court should have determined that Snaza has qualified immunity. 6 … Although Snaza points out that it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove that 24 1 a right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes

Drake v. Pierce

691 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 14, 1988

By delaying implementation of the final rule until July 13, 1988, HUD allows PHAs to continue offering certificates to families who do not qualify for a statutory preference ahead of those that do qualify. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (recognizing partial immunity for conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should

Kottler v. State

963 P.2d 834 · 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. … Thus, the general principle in Washington established by the Legislature in 1981 is joint and several liability.