Case law

Villegas v. United States

926 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 30, 2013

In any action against the United States, a plaintiff must establish both subject matter jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Arford v. United States, 934 F.2d 229, 231 (9th Cir.1991). … Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir.2007) (“[C]ourts should not undertake to infer in one cause of action when a complaint clearly states a claim under a different cause of action.”

Dold v. Snohomish County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 7, 2023

The Court previously concluded that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity: 9 Even if the deputies’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established that 10 warrantless entry under these … Schwartz, The Case Against Qualified Immunity, 93 Notre Dame L. 11 Rev. 1797 (2018); William Baude, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, 106 Cal. L.

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

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.

Walters v. Hampton

14 Wash. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 9, 1975

Respondent City supports the dismissal by asserting the doctrine of discretionary sovereign immunity, Evangelical United Brethren Church v. … His duty to prosecute “all violations of city ordinances which come-to his knowledge” clearly involves an initial determination by him that an ordinance has been violated.

Vet Voice Found. v. Hobbs

4 Wash. 3d 383 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2025

Voters must establish that they are eligible to vote when they register. RCW 29A.08.010. … PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES Under our state constitution’s privileges and immunities clause, “[n]o law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or

Garcia v. Island County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 2, 2022

of qualified 4 immunity. … “Clearly Established” Rights 17 To be “clearly established,” the contours of the alleged constitutional right must 18 simply be “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Lewis v. City of Medina

87 Wash. 2d 19 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1976

We will, however, state briefly a number of other reasons which support the action of the board and clearly demonstrate such action was not arbitrary and capricious, nor was it contrary to law. … The relevant provision contains the words “would have qualified as a building site.” The subject property would not have qualified under King County standards which required a minimum of 6,000 square feet.

Yonker v. Department of Social & Health Services

85 Wash. App. 71 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 1997

Neither of *80 these qualifiers necessarily means that the protected group must he small or narrow. Indeed, such is not the requirement. … The Legislature imposed a specific duty oil the Department, and the Legislature has abrogated governmental immunity (RCW 4.96.010).

Bell v. City of Spokane

District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 23, 2020

Plaintiff counters by citing 19 an Eighth Circuit decision that found similar behavior violated clearly established 20 law. … ECF No. 37 at 14. 1 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil damages unless 2 their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Clauson v. Thurston County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 4, 2023

Defendants in a § 1983 action are entitled to 9 qualified immunity from damages for civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly 10 established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … taken in the light most 20 favorable to the party asserting the injury; and (2) whether, if so, the conduct violated clearly 21 established law when viewed in the specific context of the case.

J.S. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC

184 Wash. 2d 95 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 3, 2015

But subsection 230(c)(1) does not protect the ISP from liability for other causes of action. ¶20 The context of subsection 230(c)(1) also compels the conclusion that it does not establish an immunity. … As discussed in more detail below, this provision clearly shows that Congress contemplated defenses for good faith actions *108 that do not rely on an ISP’s status as a publisher or speaker.

Garibay v. State

131 Wash. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 6, 2005

The “public duty doctrine” has modified the traditional concept of sovereign immunity. … This intent must be clearly expressed; it will not be implied. Id. The purpose of the Industrial Insurance Act is to protect the public at large, not a defined class of persons. RCW 49.17.010.

Alton v. PHILLIPS CO. v. STATE

65 Wash. 2d 199 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1964

The purpose of the constitutional provisions, as stated in Huse , is clearly to strike down such legislation. The reasoning in Sirrine v. State, 132 S. C. 241, 128 S. E. 172 (1925), is particularly applicable. … individuals without violating the special privileges and immunities provision of our state constitution.

Gossage v. State

49 P.3d 927 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 2, 2002

Gossage argues that Ford establishes that "`preferred for appointment and employment' is given its plain meaning—a veteran protected under this statute shall be selected over another qualified candidate...." … The record before us establishes that taking the entire hiring process into account, Gossage was not equally qualified to those applicants ultimately chosen for the position.

Taylor v. Vangesen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 20, 2021

In the alternative, VanGesen argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 10 A. … of Taylor’s claims. 14 “Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity from 15 civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or 16 constitutional

State v. Brown

31 Wash. 2d 475 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1948

Such a ruling would be tantamount to granting him permanent immunity. We find no merit in the second assignment of error. … The record shows them to be amply qualified experts as to the matters about which they testified.

Merz

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2026

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 20 would have known.” … A two-part test 21 resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged 22 facts that “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and if so, whether the “right at 1 issue was ‘clearly

International Franchise Ass'n v. City of Seattle

97 F. Supp. 3d 1256 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2015

If they offer a qualifying health plan, they will be given four years to implement the new law. … If there is a privilege or immunity, the second step is to determine whether the legislature had a “reasonable ground” for granting the privilege or immunity. Id. 1. Does the Ordinance Involve a Privilege or Immunity?

Gossage v. State

112 Wash. App. 412 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 2, 2002

Gossage argues that Ford establishes that “ ‘preferred for appointment and employment’ is given its plain meaning — a veteran protected under this statute shall be selected over another qualified candidate.” … The record before us establishes that taking the entire hiring process into account, Gossage was not equally qualified to those applicants ultimately chosen for the position.