Case law

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation v. Washington

446 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 22, 1978

of intergovernmental tax immunity. … This is clearly insufficient to establish an interference with tribal self-government. Fort Mojave Tribe v. County of San Bernardino, 543 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 983 (1977).

Sundberg v. Evans

78 Wash. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 20, 1995

She concluded that the ordinance did not clearly show a commercial designation. … Sum-rail’s representations are not therefore immune under the discretionary governmental immunity exception.

Doney v. Uttecht

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 25, 2021

to qualified 15 immunity from Plaintiff’s claim. … To determine if 20 an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts ask two questions: whether the 21 alleged facts state a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right is clearly 1 established such

State v. Fagalde

85 Wash. 2d 730 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1975

A licensed psychologist must have a doctoral degree with a *733 major in psychology and a year’s experience practicing psychology under qualified supervision and must pass a prescribed examination. … The provision in this act granting immunity from civil liability indicates that reports concerning statements made by the perpetrator are contemplated, even though they would otherwise be privileged.

Washington Chocolate Co. v. King County

21 Wash. 2d 630 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1944

The holding of the court in the case cited was clearly correct. In the later case of Lake & Co. v. … The supreme court has clearly pointed out the distinction between imports and property moving in interstate commerce.

Ejonga-Deogracias v. Sinclair

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 27, 2024

immunity. … Tsuchida’s R&R on this issue.  3 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, defendants do not enjoy qualified immunity if 4

State v. Miller

177 Wash. 442 · Washington Supreme Court · May 2, 1934

Clearly this was not error. … The instruction continues: “But I charge you gentlemen that, in dealing with such a condition, you ought to use great caution not to give immunity to persons who commit crime when they are inflamed by intoxicating drink.

United States v. State of Washington

909 F. Supp. 787 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 18, 1995

Lewis recognized that: "Those qualified to act as commissioners in a particular area are likely to have had prior association with those qualified as expert witnesses from that area." … The Shively presumption "holds that any pre statehood grant of property does not include tidelands unless the grant clearly indicated that tidelands were included." Washington, 873 F.Supp. at 1443.

American Network, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission

113 Wash. 2d 59 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1989

WAC 480-120-057(1) provides as follows: (1) Establishment of credit—interexchange telecommunications company. … or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.

Owens v. Young

59 Wash. 2d 30 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1961

As to her, the record establishes the clear intent of the parties to continue the host-guest relationship. … Clearly the act of the defendant in turning the car around . . . for the return trip was necessarily incidental to the accomplishment of the gratuitous undertaking, in order to carry out the prearranged purpose of the trip

Key Tronic Corp. v. United States

766 F. Supp. 865 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 12, 1991

Absent express congressional consent to the award of interest in addition to a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune from an interest award. Library of Congress v. … CERCLA clearly states that in cost recovery actions under § 107 *869 the plaintiff may recover prejudgment interest.

Department of Revenue v. Boeing Co.

85 Wash. 2d 663 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1975

We agree with the Superior Court that this is clearly erroneous and that the record establishes that the building could be used for purposes other than the manufacture of Boeing 747’s. … The record makes it apparent that the Superior Court was correct and that the finding of the Board of Tax Appeals was clearly erroneous as to the weight of the jigs.

Washington State Republican Party v. STATE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION

4 P.3d 808 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2000

Qualified immunity may also be raised as a defense. … Under this doctrine, public employees performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Moody v. McCullough

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 12, 2021

The Defendants also assert that COO McCullough is entitled to 12 qualified immunity and immunity as a prosecutor and witness. Id. … “Law is ‘clearly established’ for the purposes of qualified 22 immunity if every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing

State v. Boren

36 Wash. 2d 522 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1950

"To own and manage property is a natural right, and one which may be restricted only for reasons of public policy, clearly discernible. … Clearly, such a regulation is a reasonable exercise of its police power. For the reasons hereinabove assigned, the decision in State v. Brown is hereby overruled.

Webb v. City of Vancouver

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 19, 2020

Qualified Immunity 10 Defendants in a § 1983 action enjoy qualified immunity from damages for civil 11 liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Moreover, Defendants assert 8 qualified immunity as to each claim and Webb has the burden to cite precedent that 9 clearly establishes a violation in the circumstances he alleges. Tarabochia, 766 F.3d at 10 1125.

Gausvik v. Perez

239 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 16, 2002

Qualified immunity shields § 1983 defendants “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … This issue of material fact precludes awarding qualified immunity to Perez for an alleged violation of plaintiffs clearly established constitutional right to familial association. 28 5.

Doscher v. Timberland Regional Library

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 4 Defendants in a § 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for civil 5 liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established … in the previous sections, Doscher does not meet the first prong of the 2 qualified immunity analysis.

Armstrong v. Whalen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 31, 2020

No. 67.) 21 If a district court denies qualified immunity based on an issue of law, the denial is 22 appealable as a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mitchell v. … the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly 11 established Fourth Amendment rights when the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable 12 to Plaintiff.

Zawacky v. County of Clark

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 10, 2024

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law 11 if, when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, “they violated no clearly 12 established constitutional right. … The Orn court also found 11 that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the shooting in 2011, 12 it was clearly established that “an officer lacks an objectively reasonable basis for