Case law

McDevitt v. Harborview Med. Ctr.

Washington Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2012

As part of our reasoning in Hunter, we also noted that "[t]he unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity in the 1963 act thus clearly -6- McDevitt v. Harborview Med. … As a result, there were no facts in Waples to address the issue of whether article II, section 26, and the legislature's waiver of sovereign immunity, permitted the legislature to establish conditions precedent before

Thiel v. Adams County Public Hospital District 2

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 9, 2024

Mecham also argues he 14 is entitled to qualified immunity. … Additionally, Mecham is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs 6 have not shown any clearly established right Mecham violated, having failed to 7 establish the elements of an equal protection claim.

Henry v. Komarovsky

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 24, 2024

Thus, Officer 8 Komarovsky is entitled to qualified immunity. 9 E. Qualified immunity protects Officer Komarovsky from a judicial deception claim. 10 To the extent Mr. … “If probable cause remains after 4 amendment, then no constitutional error has occurred” and qualified immunity applies.

Baumgardner v. Town of Ruston

712 F. Supp. 2d 1180 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 28, 2010

immunity. … a constitutional violation occurred and then whether if there was a violation whether the rights were clearly established) (internal citations omitted).

Kittitas Cnty., Corp. v. Sky Allphin, Abc Holdings, Inc.

190 Wash. 2d 691 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 16, 2017

As a result, they qualify as work product under Civil Rule (CR) 26(b)(4). A. … Decisions to this effect confuse the work-product immunity with the attorney-client privilege....

Vick v. Hernandez

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 1, 2024

immunity because any 8 violation was not clearly established. … law, and it is not a clearly established 11 violation as a matter of law.

State v. Gedarro

19 Wash. App. 826 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 1978

Proscriptions imposed upon gambling activity are entirely within the legislative domain and are essentially immune from judicial interpretation. Northwest Greyhound "Kennel Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 8 Wn. … The statute clearly provides persons of ordinary intelligence and understanding with fair notice and ascertainable standards of the conduct sought to be proscribed. *832 The definition of professional gambling clearly focuses

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

Villegas v. United States

963 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 5, 2013

effect of its face, the settlement clearly waives his accounting claim, and both parties member of that settlement. … , and (ii) those facts suffice to establish the affirmative defense with certitude.”

Earl Vernon v. Aacres Allvest, Llc

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 3, 2014

A child would frequently be able to establish dependence on a parent, but the inverse is likely rare. The same can be said in comparing spouses with siblings. … The Philippides court rejected a similar argument based on the privileges and immunities clause. 151 Wn.2d at 392 -93.

Parent v. Langdan

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 29, 2023

The plaintiff must show that officials violated 4 a constitutional right and that this right was “clearly established.” Id. A court may 5 consider the two prongs in whatever order it chooses. Pearson v. … Accordingly, 17 the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the first prong of the qualified 18 immunity test is not satisfied.  19 III.

Pettis v. State

98 Wash. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1999

judgment, and that Mikkelsen is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because we hold that no duty of care was owed to Pettis, we do not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Dot Foods, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

141 Wash. App. 874 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 27, 2007

Therefore, Dot Foods does not qualify for the exemption, and we affirm. II. … Clearly, the statute is written ambiguously. As stated above, we resolve ambiguities in favor of taxation and against exemption.

McClain

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 2, 2026

To sue a state 13 officer for money damages, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to overcome what is known as 14 “qualified immunity,” which protects government officials “from liability for civil damages 15 … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 16 which a reasonable person would have known.”

Taylor v. Vangesen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 8, 2019

Qualified Immunity 14 “Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified 15 immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate … Ohio State Highway 2 Patrol, 308 F.3d 523, 542 (2002) (clearly established in 1992 that the Constitution 3 prohibits racial targeting in law enforcement investigations), and the clearly-established 4 right under the

Velasco Ortega v. Okanogan County

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 8, 2024

Qualified Immunity 12 Nevertheless, Defendant Holloway argues he is entitled to qualified 13 immunity for each of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims as none are “clearly … Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages 15 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 16 of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

Wilson v. Wakeman

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2025

1 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary 2 functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not 3 violate clearly established … Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 323 (1972). 5 However, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that the test of “clearly established 6 law” is not to be applied at this level of generality for the purpose of a qualified immunity

Gerrard v. Craig

122 Wash. 2d 288 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1993

which to base a determination of the percentage of total fault attributable to each entity which caused the claimant's damages.[ 11 ] After considering whether an injury resulting from a chain collision automobile accident qualifies … First, that causation is difficult to separate in every case of indivisible injury; and consequently, predicating assignment of fault on establishing causation will create uncertainty for courts and litigants in indivisible

Hennessey v. Washington, Department of Social & Health Services

627 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 27, 1985

Although a state may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity, clearly the State of Washington has not done so. McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116 (9th Cir.1981). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims against DSHS must fail. … Goode, 423 U.S. 362 , 96 S.Ct. 598 , 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976) and its progeny for the *141 proposition that such claims do not establish a cause of action under § 1983.

Lundgren v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe

Washington Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2017

County of Yakima, Anderson, and Smale establish the principle that our superior courts have subject matter jurisdiction over in rem proceedings in certain situations where claims of sovereign immunity are … (dissenting)-It is well established that "tribal sovereign immunity comprehensively protects recognized American Indian tribes from suit absent explicit and 'unequivocal' waiver or abrogation." Wright v.