Case law

McKinney v. Peters

58 F. App'x 284 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2003

In evaluating whether Peters is entitled to qualified immunity, we must accept as true the facts as McKinney alleges they exist, looking only to his complaint. Saucier v. … Then, “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Price v. State Of Hawaii

939 F.2d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 18, 1991

As we said in Price II, 921 F.2d at 958 : "[O]fficials performing discretionary functions, as were these officials, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established legal principles, immunity is an issue that should first be addressed by the trial court.

Bennett v. Campbell

564 F.2d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 10, 1977

immunity which might insulate them from liability for damages. … Under this qualified immunity doctrine, a government officer performing acts in the course of official conduct is insulated from damage suits only if “(1) at the time and in light of all the circumstances there existed reasonable

Turf Paradise, Inc., an Arizona Corporation v. Arizona Downs, an Arizona Corporation

670 F.2d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 1982

Accord, Community Builders, 652 F.2d at 828 . 7 The Supreme Court established two conditions that must exist before the exemption can apply: “First, the challenged restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated and affirmatively … Turf admits that the Arizona Legislature has clearly evidenced a policy to limit the number of days allowed for horse racing and that those days be allocated to the most qualified.

Carol George v. Jarrett Morris

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

Concluding that the deputies had not argued for its application, the court did not address the second prong of qualified immunity—the clearly established inquiry. … Adams, 473 F.3d at 990.12 12 Our decision on the clearly established issue does not prevent the deputies from appropriately raising the second prong of qualified immunity at a subsequent stage in the litigation,

John v. City of El Monte

505 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 2007

“The first inquiry must be whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question [is] whether the right was clearly established.... … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Lowe v. City of Monrovia

775 F.2d 998 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 1985

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity only if a reasonable person would not have been aware that the actions at issue violated well established statutory or constitutional rights. Davis v. … Whether the City employees are immune turns on the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law, not on their subjective good faith. Tubbesing v.

Tuan Van Tran v. Gary Lindsey, Warden Salinas Valley State Prisons State of California

212 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2000

Another possible source of analogous case law might be the law relating to qualified immunity. … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (holding that, in qualified immunity cases, courts should address whether law was violated prior to determining whether it was clearly established); County

Lantz v. Crate

268 F. App'x 548 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 27, 2008

This right was clearly established at the time of Kreider’s actions. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (describing the second inquiry). … Because this right was clearly established at the time of Kreider’s actions, the district court erred by granting qualified immunity on this claim.

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7196, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,293 Lynn Hervey, Individually and as Guardian of Monica Hervey Tim Hervey Debbie Couch Emery, Individually and as Guardian of Ken Emery and Melissa Emery v. Coral Estes Tom Lind Pierce County Pierce County Sheriff's Department Tahoma Narcotics Enforcement Team

65 F.3d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 5, 1995

Qualified immunity was not properly granted on this claim. … Once the court determined that probable cause was objectively lacking, and that the law was clearly established, the inquiry was at an end.

Doe v. Attorney General of United States

941 F.2d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 1, 1991

legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken." … Doe's clearly established rights under section 504. 29 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's holding that Agent Held was entitled to qualified immunity on Dr. Doe's section 504 claim.

Orff v. United States

358 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 18, 2004

The farmers do not qualify for the waiver of sovereign immunity under the McCarran Amendment because the McCarran Amendment does not apply to this suit for money damages. … Nor do the farmers qualify for the waiver of sovereign immunity under § 390uu.

Iris Mena v. City Of Simi Valley

354 F.3d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2004

To defeat qualified immunity, the panel would then have needed to establish that a reasonable officer would have known about this novel proposition of law. 13 I am unable to imagine the reasonable police officer that the … Mena asserts on either of the above grounds, 2 then I would agree with my colleague Judge Kleinfeld that qualified immunity would be required because no "clearly established" right has been violated. 32 For these reasons

Hale v. Norton

476 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2007

violated clearly established law. … Like qualified immunity, the Hales' claim turns on an "essentially legal question," and that claim is "effectively lost" if the NPS conducts the NEPA analysis.

Petri Antero Ahonen v. Enrique Varela

53 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 3, 1995

II 8 Police officers are immune from suit if (1) the "right" they allegedly violated was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable officer would have thought that the defendant's actions … The Fourth Amendment prohibition on the use of excessive force in the course of an arrest is a clearly established right. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645 (9th Cir. 1989).

Sissoko v. United States

412 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 12, 2005

We review the district court’s qualified immunity determination de novo. … Violation of a clearly established right?

John Cruz v. City of Spokane

66 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 28, 2023

Specifically, (a) does the provision grant immunity for even intentional torts, and (b) can acts committed with unlawful intent qualify as “official acts performed in the course of . . . duties”? … Therefore, Cruz argues that further discovery regarding, for example, discriminatory or retaliatory intent and any departures from established policies and procedures may establish a genuine dispute of material fact.

Albert William Demoran v. F.A. Witt and John Does 1-4.

781 F.2d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 24, 1986

These factors are characteristics of functions that are inherently judicial and that require absolute as opposed to qualified immunity. … B Absolute immunity fails to attach to judicial officers only when they act clearly and completely outside the scope of their jurisdiction. Stump v.

Price v. Hawaii

921 F.2d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 26, 1990

Qualified Immunity. … More pertinently, perhaps, officials performing discretionary functions, as were these officials, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Eklund v. City of Seattle Municipal Court

628 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 24, 2010

Bonner is entitled to qualified immunity if his “ ‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” See James v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808, 818 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), courts have discretion to grant qualified immunity if the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, without deciding whether there was a