Case law

Hofschneider v. City of Vancouver

182 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2016

Schaffer also argues that his search and seizure of Hofschneider was conducted reasonably, and that, even if it was not, he is entitled to qualified immunity because any right he did violate was not “clearly established.” … the “right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Hill v. Washington State Department of Corrections

628 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 31, 2009

Second, Plaintiffs contend that no individual Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person would know that enforcing the DOC Policy violates a clearly established constitutional right. … Qualified Immunity Defendants also urge that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not alleged violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the pre-conviction eligibility requirement

Goldsmith v. Snohomish County

558 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 15, 2008

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity is an immunity from suit). Saucier established a two-step analysis of qualified immunity. … At step two, immunity attaches if the officer was reasonably mistaken and/or if the constitutional right was not clearly established. 1.

M.M.T. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2018

The Court will only address the qualified immunity issue because the Government and Taitano are obviously entitled qualified immunity and it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed, multi-factor analysis to determine whether … Therefore, Taitano is entitled to qualified immunity. See , e.g. , United States v.

Aitken v. Reed

89 Wash. App. 474 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity for Section 1983 Property Interest Claim The State contends that even if Reed failed to provide Aitken a hearing as required by due process, she is protected by qualified immunity. … She is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Aitken’s due process claim.

Cooper v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2023

Because of the 2 particularized nature of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs must establish that “the 3 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established” for each of the individual Whatcom 4 Deputies … Jefferson fails to establish the objective deliberate indifference standard as a matter of law, 6 so each one is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 134 at 14–17.

Fordyce v. City of Seattle

840 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 1993

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” and “ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … The Ninth Circuit has recently held: When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles

Wetmore v. Gardner

735 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity The defendants next contend that they are entitled to a verdict in their favor or a new trial based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … . *983 Because it was clearly established law that the policy could be found constitutional only by a showing of legitimate penological need, the policymaker defendants were entitled to qualified immunity only if it was shown

Jones v. State

170 Wash. 2d 338 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

Whether Wene and Jeppesen are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 for violating Jones’ right to due process ¶17 When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a § 1983 suit and raises a qualified … Qualified immunity ¶27 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly

Harrell v. State

170 Wash. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2012

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 . … and Richards enjoyed qualified immunity.

Bosteder v. City of Renton

117 P.3d 316 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2005

This suggests the law was clearly established at the time the current warrant was sought and the defendants would not have been entitled to qualified immunity. … However, I disagree the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they did not violate a "clearly established" right.

Spencer v. King County

39 Wash. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1984

State officials are afforded a qualified immunity from liability under section 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … At a minimum, the constitutional rights asserted by Spencer were not "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.

Hewitt v. Grabicki

596 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 23, 1984

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonable competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms, we provide no license to lawless conduct.

Amili v. City of Tukwila

31 F. Supp. 3d 1274 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, ■ protects government officers “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … See Torres, 648 F.3d at 1129 (test of whether right is clearly established cannot be so narrow that qualified immunity is transformed into absolute immunity).

Francisco Entila Et Al., Appellants, v. Gerald Cook Et Al., Respondents

190 Wash. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 5, 2015

Given the legislative policy favoring third-party actions, one would expect any expansion of immunity to be clearly stated. Entila relies on Olson v. … To establish immunity, Cook must show that he was doing work for Boeing at the time of the accident.

HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of Seattle

979 P.2d 400 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not. … Nor, as noted, is the City entitled to the benefit of any qualified personal immunity enjoyed by the probation counselor.

Chism v. Washington Ex Rel. Washington State Patrol

683 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity and Summary Judgment 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 … Even assuming the existence of a constitutional violation, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Guffey v. State

103 Wash. 2d 144 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1984

Secondly, we establish an additional narrow immunity defense under specified conditions. Finally, we determine whether the trooper in the present case should be protected by this immunity. … A review of the circumstances under which such qualified immunity has been found thus far in Washington is essential to an understanding of the qualified immunity established today.

Hargrove v. Riley

100 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 19, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “[f]rom liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Riley is not entitled to qualified immunity because she failed to establish that her conduct was reasonable notwithstanding the existence of clearly established law.

Ostling v. City of Bainbridge Island

872 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 24, 2012

But qualified immunity provides a higher standard: the right must be “clearly established” at the time of the incident. The right to be free from the use of excessive force is, of course, clearly established. … And for similar reasons, the Court must deny qualified immunity. The right to medical aid in these circumstances is “clearly established,” see City of Revere v.