Case law

United States v. Anthony Pisarski

965 F.3d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2020

In other words, the exemptions in California medical marijuana law did not apply to criminal defendants who failed to establish that the members of the collective were either qualified patients or primary caregivers. … The MMPA “protections cannot apply” to a criminal defendant who has not established that the “proffered” members of the collective are “qualified patients” or “primary caregiver[s].” 5 The possibility of compliance

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

Henderson v. Mohave County

54 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 3, 1995

The Sheriffs’ Appeal The standard for qualified immunity is definitively established by Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991). … The entire jurisprudence of qualified immunity is premised on the proposition that well-trained, competent police officers will be aware of what constitutional rights have been established.

Thomas v. Ponder

611 F.3d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2010

We decline to reach the prison officials’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity The district court did “not reach defendant’s argument that they are entitled to *1157 qualified immunity,” because it found … In order to establish qualified immunity, a government official must show that his “conduct has not violated any ‘clearly established’ constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

Brittain v. Campbell

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 21, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from lia- bility for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not vio- late clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allega- tions established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. at 201.

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.

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.

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.

United States v. Robert Brutzman

731 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 1984

Defense Witness Immunity The district court denied Brutzman’s motion for immunity for his attorney, Arnett, a prospective defense witness whose testimony Brutzman claims was crucial for his defense. … In the context of the record as a whole, we cannot say the trial court clearly erred in denying the motion for a mistrial.

Ross v. City of Toppenish

104 F. App'x 26 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 15, 2004

immunity if it was not clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct that such conduct would violate the Fourth Amendment. … That a police officer is not entitled to use such force against a handcuffed, secured and compliant citizen was clearly established “years before 1999[.]” Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520, 534 (4th Cir.2003).

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.

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.

Sandy Ganwich Linda Hornbeck Kila Hornbeck Bryan Hornbeck Tracy Ingram, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Children Treia Ingram Reina Ingram Harold W. Jones, AKA Pete Jones Mike Knox Kimberly Sadler v. Ronald Knapp, and Pierce County, Washington Deborah Heishman, Sandy Ganwich Linda Hornbeck Kila Hornbeck Bryan Hornbeck Tracy Ingram, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Children Treia Ingram Reina Ingram Harold W. Jones, AKA Pete Jones Mike Knox Kimberly Sadler v. Ronald Knapp, and Pierce County, Washington Deborah Heishman

319 F.3d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2003

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argue that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity because the district court's ruling occurred before the completion of discovery and expressly left the qualified immunity … immunity analysis: We ask whether the right was "clearly established."

J. J. v. City of San Diego

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2022

Defendants therefore did not violate clearly established law and were entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity test. … Because we conclude the officers did not violate clearly established law and thus are protected by qualified immunity, we affirm. 6 J. K. J. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO BACKGROUND I.

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

Beck v. City of Upland

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 2008

Qualified Immunity Beck has met his burden to establish causation on both his First and Fourth Amendment causes of action. … See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201 (discussing step one of the qualified immunity inquiry) All that remains is to determine whether the pertinent law was clearly estab- lished at the time of the incidents in this case.

Gibson v. City of Portland

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 29, 2026

A state actor 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.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818; Longoria v. … If so, we then ask whether that right was clearly established. See id. at 232.

Hale v. Norton

461 F.3d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 24, 2006

complains violated clearly estab- lished law. … Like qualified immunity, the Hales’ claim turns on an “essentially legal question,” and that claim is “effectively lost” if the NPS con- ducts the NEPA analysis.

Olagues v. Russoniello

770 F.2d 791 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 3, 1985

Reed, 754 F.2d 1512, 1514 (9th Cir.1985) (establishing framework for determining whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity). … But even if it did, the illegality of such a classification was not “clearly established.” The district court’s order finding qualified immunity for all federal and state officials sued is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED.