Case law

Resek v. City of Huntington Beach

41 F. App'x 57 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 2002

Wersching next argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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 would have known

Bergquist v. County of Cochise

806 F.2d 1364 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 23, 1986

Briggs in no way alters the substantive law governing searches, it merely establishes that the qualified immunity from damage suits is no broader than the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. … Because we have reversed the district court’s judgment on the officers’ qualified immunity, we must also vacate its decision on the supervisors’ liability.

David Demers v. Erica Austin

729 F.3d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2013

light of clearly established law and the information [that they] possessed.” … The court held that the professor’s First Amendment rights were clearly established in the Fourth Circuit, and it denied qualified immunity.

Weissenberg v. Terhune

17 F. App'x 580 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2001

We review de novo the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, Robinson v. … were clearly established.

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.

American Fire, Theft & Collision Managers, Inc. v. Gillespie

932 F.2d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 1991

The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The proper balance has been struck in limiting the defense of qualified immunity to actions for money damages.

Estate of Jill Ann Esche v. Bunuel-Jordana

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 29, 2025

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 would have … According to Renown, this good- faith defense operates as an immunity from suit akin to qualified immunity.

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.

Chism v. Washington State

661 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 7, 2011

We also conclude that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because the Chisms’ right to not be searched and arrested as a result of judicial deception was clearly established at the time Gardner prepared and … Qualified Immunity [20] Qualified immunity shields the officers from liability “insofar as their conduct d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo

291 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 4, 2002

Finally, we find that neither the District Attorney nor the Sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by executing a warrant outside of their jurisdiction. … On review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Pelletier v.

Jensen v. City Of Oxnard

145 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity 22 All of the individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are given qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Kern v. Clark County

231 F. App'x 622 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 3, 2007

Until a specific substantive due process right is recognized or clearly established in this circuit, officials are entitled to qualified immunity from such claims alleging a violation of such a right as a matter of law. … Fox is entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation occurred. Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 943 (9th Cir.2004).

Phillips v. Hust

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

Hust contends that, even if her actions amounted to a viola- tion of Phillips’s rights, the right was not clearly established, and she is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … A A state officer is not protected by qualified immunity where he or she has violated a clearly established constitu- tional right. Under Saucier v.

Young v. County of Los Angeles

655 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2011

immunity by assessing whether “the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … See Hope, 536 U.S. at 741 (holding that factually identical precedents are not required for law to be clearly established for qualified immunity pur- poses).

Sportique Fashions, Inc. v. Sullivan

597 F.2d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 1979

Finally, appellants’ failure to show that defendants were negligent means that defendants clearly fall under the immunity rule for public officials. … Defendants Lawrence and Bennett, as representatives and employees of an agency of the United States, the Postal Service, have at least a qualified immunity for their acts. 3 The qualified immunity rule protects such officials

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7610, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,280 Kevin L. Harris v. Arthur Roderick, and Lon T. Horiuchi, Kevin L. Harris v. Arthur Roderick, Richard Rogers, Steve McGavin Les Hazen, Dale Carnege, William Gore, and Eugene F. Glenn, Kevin L. Harris v. Arthur Roderick, and G. Wayne "Duke" Smith, Kevin L. Harris v. Arthur Roderick, and Larry Potts, Kevin L. Harris v. Arthur Roderick, Larry Cooper, Jose Antonio "Tony" Perez, Henry Hudson

126 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 1997

Horiuchi misconceives the requirements of qualified immunity law. Harris need not present a factually similar case in order to show that his constitutional rights were clearly established. … The Rules directly infringed on the clearly established constitutional rights of those at whom they were aimed, including Harris. There is no qualified immunity for such conduct, either.

John Houston Sellars v. Raymond K. Procunier

641 F.2d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 9, 1981

Absolute and Qualified Immunity a. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity has been accorded to certain state officials for decisions made in the good faith exercise of their official responsibilities.9 10 It has been recognized that some degree of immunity

Werbicki v. County of Los Angeles

32 F. App'x 302 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 1, 2002

By the same token, we cannot hold that Cifelli is entitled to qualified immunity. … An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct violated the Werbickis’ constitutional rights and those rights were clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have considered entry unlawful under

Fink v. Ylst

198 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

Qualified Immunity Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The duty of guards to intervene was not clearly established at the time of this incident. Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 418 (9th Cir.2003).

Nevada v. Hicks

196 F.3d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 9, 1999

We also affirm the district court’s rulings on the issues of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. A. … court did find that “it is not prevented by doctrines of sovereign or qualified immunity from lawfully exerting personal jurisdiction over specially appearing State defendants,” this finding was clearly restricted to the