Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.95s
59 F.3d 134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 1995
protected, Richard and Ream were not entitled to qualified immunity. … When the law is clearly established, public officials are immune only when they objectively could have believed that their conduct was lawful. Act Up/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir.1993).
Cited 7 timesPublished608 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 2010
Did Officer MacPherson Violate Bryan’s Clearly Established Rights? … Two other panels have recently, in cases involving different circumstances, concluded that the law regarding tasers is not sufficiently clearly established to warrant denying officers qualified immunity. Mattos v.
Cited 14 timesPublished52 F. App'x 341 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 26, 2002
immunity against money damages unless a reasonable officer would have known that they violated clearly established law. … Qualified immunity “requires a two-part analysis: 1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? 2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?” Act Up!
Cited 3 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2006
It denied qualified immunity to Brooks and Hanson on the basis of Giles v. … I therefore concur with the majority in finding that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublished71 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 1, 1995
The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from liability, if “a reasonable government official could have believed that his conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he … If the law prohibiting the conduct was clearly established and a reasonable official could not have believed his conduct lawful, then the official is not immune.
Cited 121 timesPublishedBurlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Vaughn
509 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 7, 2007
As with absolute, qualified, and Eleventh Amendment immunity, tribal sovereign immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and ... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted … Clearly it has done so.
Cited 68 timesPublishedAdvanced Building & Fabricatio v. Curtis Ayers
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2019
DISCUSSION To survive a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: “(1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Isayeva v. … Moreover, this right was “clearly established” following the Court’s opinion in Wilson in 1999.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2026
“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law.” Zorn v. Linton, 146 S. Ct. 926, 930 (2026). … Assuming a constitutional violation here, Wise and Key are entitled to qualified immunity on the “clearly established” prong.
Cited 0 timesPublished276 F. App'x 675 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2008
Because the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Fuller, establish a constitutional violation, we turn to whether the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The individual Defendants are not eligible for qualified immunity under California law because California denies qualified immunity to officers who use excessive force. See Robinson v.
Cited 2 timesPublished73 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1996
In Mitchell , the Court held that qualified immunity is not a mere defense but rather an immunity from suit which would be lost if the case erroneously went to trial; therefore, denial of qualified immunity is an appropriate … A determination of qualified immunity turns “on the resolution of the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” Id. at 526 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815 .
Cited 11 timesPublished79 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 11, 1996
Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir.1993). 6 The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Analysis of a claim of qualified immunity entails three steps: "(1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so 'clearly established' as to alert a reasonable
Cited 0 timesPublishedDetrice Garmon v. County of Los Angeles
828 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 5, 2016
The panel held that the prosecutor was absolutely immune for issuing the subpoena and for using the plaintiff’s medical information at trial. She was entitled to qualified immunity, at most, for her declaration. … In determining whether actions of government officials are entitled to absolute immunity, or only subject to qualified immunity, we focus on “the nature of the function performed.” Buckley v.
Cited 253 timesPublishedMcSherry v. City of Long Beach
423 F.3d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 8, 2005
Pre-trial dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is inappropriate if the plaintiff establishes that material issues of fact exist. LaLonde v. … "[T]here is a clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government."
Cited 42 timesPublishedAnthony Reed v. Doug Lieurance
863 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 2017
“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 rights of which a reasonable person … The Court also notes that even if Deputy Lieurance were entitled to qualified immunity on Reed’s Fourth Amendment claim, Montana courts do not afford defendants qualified immunity for claimed state constitutional violations
Cited 130 timesPublishedEdgerly v. City and County of San Francisco
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2007
Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims unless (1) their alleged conduct violated a con- stitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established. … Also, because no reasonable officer could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that the search as described by Edgerly was constitutional, the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the search.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSam Friedenberg v. Lane County
68 F.4th 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 2023
LANE COUNTY center to remove a case when the United States fails to inform the state court whether the FTCA remedy is available. 42 U.S.C. § 233(l)(2) (establishing that if an action qualifying for immunity under § 233 … The statute, however, clearly establishes that procedural objections become ripe when a defendant files the notice of removal.
Cited 30 timesPublished121 F. App'x 701 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 28, 2005
We review the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity de novo. … In ruling on qualified immunity, we must consider whether, “taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, [] the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” that is clearly
Cited 2 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 8, 2008
The Inspectors moved for summary judgment on the basis of absolute and qualified immunity. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTekle Ex Rel. Tekle v. United States
511 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2007
"[I]n the absence of binding precedent, we `look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits … As stated above, the UNITED STATES shall not be shielded in qualified immunity from liability for civil damages when the conduct of its agents violates clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
Cited 138 timesPublished109 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 1997
If it was not clearly established, the official is entitled to immunity from suit. (2) If the law was clearly established, we proceed to ask if under that law, a reasonable official could have believed the conduct was lawful … Therefore, an official is denied qualified immunity only if the law was clearly established and a reasonable official could not have believed the conduct was lawful. 9 We are concerned in this case only with the first inquiry
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna