Case law

Watts v. Runnels

302 F. App'x 652 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 2008

The district court properly determined that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from Watts’ equal protection claim because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Saucier v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 199, 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (explaining that for the purposes of qualified immunity the court must consider whether the infringed right was clearly established, and if so, must

Beth Ann Smith v. James F. McGlothlin

119 F.3d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 17, 1997

But we need not go so far because the district court dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity. … The court held that it was not clearly established that the search was improper; vice principal McGlothlin, as a state official, was therefore immune from suit. See Anderson v.

Babcock v. Tyler

884 F.2d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 6, 1989

But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest. … Because we resolve this dispute on the basis of absolute immunity, we do not consider whether this court has appellate jurisdiction over the issue of qualified immunity or whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity

Gomez v. City of Whittier

211 F. App'x 573 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 2006

Even if plaintiffs were able to establish that their arrests violated the Fourth Amendment, the officers were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the … Even if plaintiffs were able to establish that the level of force used was “excessive,” the officers were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the officers’

Johnson v. United States

170 F.2d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 5, 1948

The admitted facts clearly show that during the period when these vessels caused the damage here alleged they had terminated their war work and were homeward bound. … It argues that these are “qualifying” words which necessarily lead to the conclusions that on the facts the instant claim "arises out of” combatant activities.

Midwest Growers Cooperative Corp. v. Kirkemo

533 F.2d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 1976

In explaining the doctrine of official immunity the Court noted that, “Implicit in the idea that officials have some immunity — absolute or qualified — for their acts, is a recognition that they may err. … Having determined that the defendants acted in good faith within the doctrine of qualified immunity, it is unnecessary to consider the defendants’ contention that Scheuer v.

Tarr v. Maricopa County

256 F. App'x 71 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2007

The magistrate judge’s decision was based on his conclusion that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on Tarr’s Fourth Amendment claim. It is also clearly established that the police may not punish someone in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Sky Ad, Inc., Robert Cannon v. Homer C. McClure Jacqueline Smith, Merle Clure, John Mayhoffer, James A. Holweger

951 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 24, 1991

We need not review this summary judgment because we hold that Congress clearly did not intend the FTCA to establish liability in tort for failure to comply with publication and comment requirements for administrative rulemaking … Even if a Bivens action were implied, they argued it would be barred by qualified immunity and the statute of limitations. Finally, they argued that appellants had made no showing of proximate cause.

Durning v. CitiBank, N.A.

950 F.2d 1419 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 1991

First, an entity may be organized or managed in such a way that it does not qualify as an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. … Nonetheless, its separate corporate status is clearly established.

Thompson v. University of California Regents

68 F. App'x 81 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 2003

Thompson raised a material issue of fact as to whether there was reasonable suspicion, and his right not to be stopped absent reasonable suspicion was clearly established. … Accordingly, Officer Cresap was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Peng v. City of Bellflower

30 F. App'x 728 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity of Deputy Walker Deputy Walker is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability “unless his conduct violate[d] ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, summary judgment for Deputy Walker on the basis of qualified immunity was warranted. 19 B.

State of Arizona v. Tohono O'Odham Nation

818 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

In regard to the first New Hampshire factor, these sentences in the Nation’s 1992 brief are not “clearly inconsistent” with Nation’s argument in this case that land it acquired in trust under the LRA qualifies as a “settlement … The Compact contains a choice-of-law clause, but it does not clearly identify what law applies to interpret the terms of the Compact.

Carter v. O'malley

269 F. App'x 752 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 12, 2008

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), it correctly determined that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … established.”

Torres v. City of Los Angeles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 2008

The second question is whether the constitutional right at issue is “clearly estab- lished.” Id. at 202. Initially, Defendants argue that the qualified immunity issue is one for the court, not the jury, to decide. … In answering the second question, whether the constitutional right was clearly established, we do not consider the right as a “general proposition.” Saucier, 533  TORRES v.

Greg Elofson v. Stephanie Bivens

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 8, 2019

The district court properly determined that Mudd was entitled to qualified 2 immunity because Elofson failed to allege facts showing that Mudd violated his clearly established … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time

Henderson v. City of Seattle

71 F. App'x 631 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 23, 2003

It is clearly established law that Hadera had a constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause, and it appears that Swank was aware of this law. … On these facts, “a reasonable officer could [not] have believed [Hadera’s] arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting officer!] possessed.” Id.

Read v. Begbie

68 F. App'x 36 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 16, 2003

immunity. … In its qualified immunity analysis, the court applied the first prong of the two-prong test articulated in Saucier v.

Nelson v. Day

76 F. App'x 213 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 29, 2003

Because we find that Nelson’s right to release was not “clearly established” until the Montana Supreme Court granted his habeas petition on September 7, 2000, qualified immunity precludes relief for incarceration prior to

No. 96-35156

119 F.3d 1385 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 15, 1997

We disagree. 13 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … We held that the social workers' conduct was shielded by qualified immunity. Id. at 334 .

Stock West Corporation, an Oregon Corporation v. Michael Taylor

942 F.2d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 1991

We need not determine whether Taylor’s position as Reservation Attorney qualifies him for “tribal official” immunity in the usual performance of his duties, because we conclude that the district court was premature in granting … Taylor also contends that, under the established facts of this case, Stock West will not be able to establish either its malpractice or misrepresentation claims as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).