Case law

Garth Maag v. Richard Wessler Valley County, Montana

993 F.2d 718 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 24, 1993

The doctrine of qualified immunity does not require that probable cause to detain exist: "[e]ven absent probable cause, qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his or her conduct … was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.”

Fogel v. Collins

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 26, 2008

COLLINS 7691 their employment have qualified immunity from civil suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … A two-step analysis guides our qualified immunity inquiry.

Kirstin Johnson v. Kierstie Barr

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2023

the law did not clearly establish that probable cause was lacking. … BARR clearly establish that probable cause was lacking. This reasonable officer standard for qualified immunity differs from the prudent person standard guiding our probable cause for arrest analysis.

Shames v. California Travel & Tourism Commission

626 F.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 8, 2010

We held that the companies’ actions did not qualify for state action immunity because the OPUC “did not specifically and clearly authorize[ ] by the relevant statutory process” their anticompetitive conduct. … Thus, any claim of col- lusion or conspiracy between the CTTC and the passenger rental car companies would not defeat immunity, so long as the CTTC otherwise qualifies for state action immunity.

Drendolyn Sims v. Mike Stanton

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 16, 2013

Qualified Immunity In a claim for civil damages under § 1983, to avoid the bar of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officer violated a constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established … That Welsh leaves open the possibility for a “rare” exception to this rule does not mean that the rule was not clearly established at the time and does not change our qualified immunity analysis.

Calvin G. Wright Jack Critchfield Desert Forest Products, Inc., D/B/A Hutchinson, Carter Company v. U.S. Postal Service

29 F.3d 1426 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 1994

As a general matter, therefore, sovereign immunity does not shield the USPS from the subcontractors’ actions to establish and foreclose equitable liens. See Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. … If a qualifying contractor fails to pay a subcontractor, the subcontractor may sue the surety to recover under the bond. Id. § 270b.

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 839, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1369 Tomas Armendariz Rosa C. Armendariz Harry Julian Brown, Jr. Lance A. Bukouskis v. James F. Penman W.R. Holcomb David M. Stachowski Cecil Dillard Kenneth J. Henderson, Tomas Armendariz Rosa C. Armendariz Harry Julian Brown, Jr. Lance A. Bukouskis v. James F. Penman W.R. Holcomb David M. Stachowski Cecil Dillard Kenneth J. Henderson, and Al Boughey Larry Reed, Tomas Armendariz Rosa C. Armendariz v. James F. Penman

75 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 1996

immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Josiah L. Hoohuli v. George Ariyoshi

741 F.2d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 1984

Qualified Immunity The district court relied on principles of qualified immunity as set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) as an alternative basis for its dismissal. … In Harlow , the Court held that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Deboer v. Pennington

206 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 17, 2000

If the right is not clearly established, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 698 (9th Cir. 1997). … Clearly Established Law 31 Having identified the right at issue, we must determine whether it was clearly established before January 31, 1995.

George H. Robinson v. Kingston W. Prunty

249 F.3d 862 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2001

established' law." … "In order to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the right was`clearly established,' and (3) determine whether a reasonable

Whitaker v. Garcetti

486 F.3d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 9, 2007

The court ruled that “Defendants are undoubtedly entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, since [the district court’s] constitutional holding obviously was not ‘clearly established’ at the time of the activity.” … “Qualified immunity is ‘an entitle- ment not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ The privilege is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.’ ” Saucier v.

Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC

736 F.3d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 27, 2013

a particular constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged governmental misconduct. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), courts must determine whether the law the defendant allegedly violated was “clearly established.” Id. at 818.

Evans v. McKay

869 F.2d 1341 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 16, 1989

The police officers also argue that they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability for damages for deprivation of an individual’s civil rights. See Procunier v. … Because answers have not yet been filed in this case, the issue of qualified immunity was not raised or decided below. We decline to reach it for the first time on appeal.

Hall v. Tudbury

35 F. App'x 428 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2002

If the facts alleged show a constitutional violation, we determine whether the law was clearly established. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. … Finally, if the law was clearly established, yet based on the circumstances, the officer made a mistake regarding what the law required, the officer will be entitled to immunity if the mistake was reasonable.

Ho-Chuan Chen v. Dougherty

225 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2007

It is clearly established that “[t]he focus of the Mt. … Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 593-94 , 118 S.Ct. 1584 , 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (rejecting a qualified immunity test that would “immunize all officials whose conduct is ‘objectively valid,’ regardless of improper intent”).

Price v. Hawaii

939 F.2d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 1991

As we said in Price II, 921 F.2d at 958 : “[Officials performing discretionary functions, as were these officials, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … We recognize that in order to avoid a qualified immunity claim the appellants must show that the law supporting the following chain of reasoning was clearly established, Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 : that

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2785, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4929 Charles W. Thompson v. Gary R. Souza, in His Individual and Official Capacity T.M. De La Rosa, in His Individual Capacity G.D. Jordan, in His Individual Capacity

111 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 16, 1997

If it was not clearly established, the official is entitled to immunity from suit. … Because Thompson has not proved that the Officials' conduct violated clearly established law, we reverse the order of the district court denying the Officials qualified immunity as to the strip search claim. B.

Rosa Zamora v. Irma Gonzalez Janice Mayfield David Schluter S. Castaneda Jesse Cote

15 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 1994

Federal officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Bivens claim if their conduct does not violate a "clearly established" constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 . 26 Here, Zamora failed to allege any acts by IRS employees that violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Butler v. City of Sacramento

365 F. App'x 749 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2009

I Perez is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Butler, demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the … entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Daniel Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2024

CITY OF LOS ANGELES qualified immunity because McBride did not violate clearly established law. … Because McBride did not violate clearly established law in firing her third volley of shots, we conclude that she is entitled to qualified immunity.