Case law

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

Riley v. Burlington Northern, Inc.

27 Wash. App. 11 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 29, 1980

Consequently, the County was immune from tort liability. On that sole ground, plaintiffs' action was dismissed. We reverse. Discretionary governmental immunity in this state is an extremely limited exception. Stewart v. … (4) Does the governmental agency involved possess the requisite . . . authority *15 Only if all four questions are clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, can the act, omission or decision be classified as

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.

Aydelotte v. Town of Skykomish

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 2020

Pearson, 555 2 U.S. at 232 (citations omitted). 3 The right to speak freely without retaliation has long been clearly established for the 4 purposes of qualified immunity … protected speech was clearly established.” 9 Aydelotte, 757 F.

State v. Nichols

28 Wash. 628 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1902

Certainly, in the view of authority and well recognized principles, this is no arbitrary exception; and, unless clearly so-, it is not within the province of the judiciary to inquire further into the policy of the statute … The legislature may also deem it desirable to' prescribe peculiar rules for the several occupations, and to establish distinctions in the rights, obligations, duties, and capacities of citizens.

Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders With Ethics & Accountability Now

119 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 13, 2004

The second is that the defendant prevail by establishing immunity. … Nor will the record support a finding that $50,000 was reasonably incurred to establish a single defense (immunity) to a single claim (the IA defamation claim).

Manor v. Nestle Food Co.

131 Wash. 2d 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1997

ANALYSIS An employer may comply with the requirements of the IIA either by insuring with the State Industrial Insurance Fund or qualifying as a self-insurer under Title 51 RCW. … While this is a regulation and not a statute, "[i]t has been established in a variety of contexts that properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the 'force and effect of law.’ ” Chrysler Corp. v.

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

Stone v. United States

225 F. Supp. 201 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 31, 1963

Sovereign immunity has been waived by section 2410. … Hutcherson, supra: “ * * * We do not conceive it to be an appropriate exercise of the power and authority of a federal court to strike down a rule of property, not repugnant to any law of the United States, long established

Wash. State Major League Baseball Stadium Pfd v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Const. Co.

202 P.3d 924 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2009

Thus, because community colleges were established through enabling rather than mandatory acts, the superior court held Northampton did not qualify under the nullum tempus doctrine to an exemption from the statute of limitations … It therefore denied the school district's claim to governmental immunity.

Parker v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2023

11 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing 12 discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as 13 their conduct does not violate clearly … The State defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 14 The State also argues that its employees have qualified immunity from Parker’s § 15 1983 constitutional against them.

Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc.

70 Wash. 2d 245 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1967

This was clearly recognized in United States v. … The state has clearly met that test, at least to the extent that it has established that continued use by the defendants of their drift nets and set nets would result in the nearly complete destruction of the anadromous fish

Roberts v. Governor Jay Inslee

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 18, 2024

Defendant answers that he is entitled 16 to qualified immunity on these issues because Plaintiffs have not established that 17 the Proclamation violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. 18 … ECF No. 36 at 55. 19 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless 20 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional

White v. King County Sheriff's Office

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 2, 2024

Qualified immunity 2 The Defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. … But the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry turns on 3 whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

Outsource Services Management, LLC v. Nooksack Business Corp.

172 Wash. App. 799 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 14, 2013

burden of proof on its existence. 8 ¶14 Where a court dismisses an FRCP 12(b)(1) motion “based on a factual challenge . . . the appellate court will accept the factual determination that underpins the decision unless it is clearly … the existence of personal jurisdiction, has discretion to rely on written submissions, or it may hold a full evidentiary hearing. 11 Once challenged, the party asserting personal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof to establish

J.E.F.M. v. Holder

107 F. Supp. 3d 1119 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 13, 2015

Plaintiffs therefore bear the burden of establishing the existence of an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Baker v. United States, 817 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir.1987). … sovereign immunity, it is DENIED.

Sturgis v. State of Washington

368 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 3, 1973

It is the judgment of this Court that the statutes of the State of Washington which require a State University student to establish a one-year residency within the State in order for that person to qualify as a resident student … person’ shall mean a person qualified to determine his own domicile.

Van Loo v. United States of America

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 5, 2023

when only one defendant is asserting qualified immunity.” … Oct. 9, 2012). 7 Defendants argue Iqbal establishes that qualified immunity “protects a defendant from 8 any discovery that could require the defendant’s involvement.” (Dkt. No. 48 at 5.)

Rehn v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 1, 2025

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless 22 (1) the officers’ conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) the right which was 23 violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Subsequent courts addressing 8 qualified immunity for mistaken home entries have found that under Garrison, it is 9 clearly established law that “absent probable cause and exigent circumstances, a 10 warrantless