Case law

Staats v. Brown

139 Wash. 2d 757 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

clearly established at the time of the act. … Qualified immunity is not available to Officer Brown for the alleged search as the Fourth Amendment right to be free of a warrantless residential search in the circumstances as alleged is clearly established. C.

Beaver v. City of Federal Way

507 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 31, 2007

Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory *1148 right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Under the second prong of Saucier, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Quinlan v. City of Seattle

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

. § 1983 because the officers should have done more to find and notify him about the impoundment would be 15 precluded by qualified immunity jurisprudence. See Hope v. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the 16 constitutional right allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the events at

Lockner v. Pierce Cnty.

190 Wash. 2d 526 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2018

App. 177 , 184, 6 P.3d 1191 (2000), aff'd , 144 Wash.2d 612 , 30 P.3d 460 (2001). ¶ 13 To qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was (1) open to members of the public … Clearly, mixed public and other uses do not defeat immunity since the legislature amended RCW 4.24.210 to include land used for hydroelectric *533 power plants.

Walden v. City of Seattle

77 Wash. App. 784 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 3, 1995

In an action under § 1983, government employees, including police officers, are afforded qualified immunity under federal law unless, in the performance of discretionary duties, their conduct violated " 'clearly established … Thus, entitlement to qualified immunity may be established as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict. Robinson v. Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 , 830 P.2d 318 , cert. denied, 113 S.

Ray v. Washington State Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2025

qualified immunity. … Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 20 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering 21 whether there is a violation of clearly established law without

Knapp v. Goudschaal

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 11, 2025

employees are not entitled to qualified immunity on judicial 5 deception claims.” … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (holding that courts 21 have discretion to consider the two prongs of qualified immunity, whether a constitutional right 22 was violated and whether that right was clearly established

Sims v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 19, 2023

Defendants have raised a viable issue regarding the manner in which the Court analyzed 19 qualified immunity. See Cunningham v. … Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he 4 ‘clearly established’ inquiry is a question of law that only a judge can decide.”).

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

103 Wash. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 11, 2000

clearly established at the time it was taken.” … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers’ actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.

Gray v. Washington State Department of Transportation

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

Plaintiffs must assert that the Individual 9 Defendants violated a clearly established federal right in order to surmount their qualified 10 immunity defense. See Lindsey v. … Shalmy, 29 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that the 11 doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply to “clearly established federal rights.”) (emphasis 12 added).

Gallegos v. Freeman

172 Wash. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

Accordingly, because the particularized right at issue was not “clearly established,” the trial court correctly ruled that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity against this claim. … In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we must bear in mind that *629 courts “undermine the values qualified immunity seeks to promote . .. when what is not clearly established is held to be so.” al-Kidd, 131 S.

Feis v. KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.

165 Wash. App. 525 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 19, 2011

resolution of a qualified immunity claim is essential." … established right so as to rebut the officers' assertion of qualified immunity.

Wilcox v. Batiste

360 F. Supp. 3d 1112 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Qualified Immunity The parties also dispute whether Chief Batiste is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages. 3 ECF No. 35 at 9; ECF No. 56 at 14. … The Court begins by assessing whether the right that Chief Batiste is alleged to have violated is clearly established. *1124 A right from a federal statute or the constitution is clearly established when a reasonable official

Segaline v. Department of Labor & Industries

199 Wash. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2017

entitled to qualified immunity. … If Alan Croft has qualified immunity as to the trespass notice he is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions that flowed from it. . . . Absent a clearly established right, Mr.

Altshuler v. City of Seattle

63 Wash. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 18, 1991

Kitsap Cy., supra (police officers entitled to qualified immunity where nature and scope of plaintiffs' right to gather shellfish not clearly established); cf. Harper v. … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must do more than identify a clearly established legal test and then allege that the defendant has violated it.

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

980 P.2d 742 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

No qualified immunity for violation of a clearly established right. Harwick's threshold defense is qualified immunity. [1] Harlow v. … Clearly, qualified immunity is appropriate only where assertions of fact by the plaintiff do not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation.

Schmitt v. LANGENOUR

162 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 28, 2011

Qualified Immunity ¶14 Schmitt contends that Forbes was not entitled to qualified immunity on his § 1983 claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution because she *405 violated a clearly established … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[glovemment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law.”

Merrilee Berge, V. Kitsap County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 11, 2023

RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY 1. … See also Lockner, 190 Wn.2d at 532 (“To qualify for immunity under RCW 4.24.210, the landowner must establish that the land at issue was (1) open 5 No. 56865-9-II to

Feis v. King County Sheriff's Department

165 Wash. App. 525 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 19, 2011

Ed. 2d 836 (2006) (“The nub of qualified immunity is the need to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not ‘clearly established’; a quick resolution of a qualified immunity claim is essential … established right so as to rebut *551 the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Savage v. State

72 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 1994

We therefore hold that the State is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent the plaintiff relies on the actions of parole officers to establish the State’s liability for negligence under a respondeat superior theory. … Justice Andersen's dissent disputes this characterization of the law in Washington and argues that Guffey, Spurrell and Frost clearly establish that, where an employee has immunity, the State cannot be held liable on a respondeat