Case law

General Dynamics Corporation v. United States of America Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer

49 F.3d 1384 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 1, 1995

The OSC specifically claimed that General Dynamics entered into a contract to obtain certain skilled English workers, and that the contract excluded available and qualified U.S. workers from consideration for those same positions … Clearly, the language of this provision, does not explicitly authorize a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees from the United States.

Harrison v. Hickel

6 F.3d 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 23, 1993

Well established law governs ... waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.... … to suit, Eleventh Amendment immunity is waived).

Tanner v. Heise

879 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1989

This allegation states a claim for relief under section 1983 and, if meritorious, is not one for which the officers would enjoy the qualified immunity accorded to government officials under Harlow v. … Because the district court erroneously believed that a “single incident” constituting a deprivation of Tanner’s constitutional rights would be “clearly insufficient” to demonstrate an established policy of arrests for misdemeanor

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7119, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,681 Humberto Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America Antonio Garate-Bustamante Francisco Sosa, and Hector Berellez Bill Waters Pete Gruden Jack Lawn, Humberto Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America, Humberto Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America, and Francisco Sosa Antonio Garate-Bustamante

96 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 24, 1996

The district court allowed the action to proceed on conduct by DEA agents acting within the United States, however, holding that the alleged conduct, if proved, clearly violated established constitutional rights. … DEA Agents Qualified Immunity 22 Pre-trial detainees possess a clearly established right to be free from punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 534-37 , 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1871-73 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979).

Stephen M. Kelly v. City of Oakland, a Municipal Corporation Kent McNab Richard Wirkkala, and Antonio Romero Douglas Anderson Joseph Samuels, Jr., Stephen M. Kelly v. City of Oakland, a Municipal Corporation Kent McNab Richard Wirkkala

198 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2000

The court ruled that "qualified immunity" was a question of law to be decided by the court not the jury. … The City is not entitled to claim qualified immunity. See Owen v.

Lee v. Hanna

32 F. App'x 937 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 2002

Katz, 583 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) expresses a strong policy favoring a finding of qualified immunity. … Although Saucier does expand the application of qualified immunity, it does not affect the legal analysis in this case.

Mark Koch v. James G. Ricketts

68 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 19, 1995

The case was tried before a jury, which found that prison officials had violated the prisoners’ rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, but that the prison officials were entitled to a defense of qualified immunity … Koch appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of qualified immunity. Vaughan v. Ricketts, 950 F.2d 1464 (9th Cir.1991).

Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

981 F.2d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 7, 1992

Private party conduct is immune from antitrust liability only if the party claiming immunity shows that its conduct satisfies two requirements. … First, it must be “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy.” Id. at 105 , 100 S.Ct. at 943 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Watts v. McKinney

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 2005

As to McKinney's claim of qualified immunity, the district court followed Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). … The act attributed to McKinney violated a clearly established constitutional right "of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1981).

Anderson v. Boyd

714 F.2d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 1983

Cogswell and Boyd argue that these allegations nevertheless fail to state a redressable claim because the pretrial order established that at all times relevant to the dispute they were acting within the course and scope of … While Cogswell and Boyd may claim absolute immunity for those actions relating to their responsibility to determine whether to revoke parole, their immunity for conduct arising from their duty to supervise parolees is qualified

United States, Ex Rel. A. Amir Ali, Under 31 U.S.C. Section 3729, Qui Tam Relator v. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall

355 F.3d 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 20, 2004

not in active use at the time of the disaster are not eligible except in those instances where the facilities were only temporarily inoperative for repairs or remodeling, or where active use by the applicant was firmly established … To establish an FCA violation, the relator must show that the defendant knew the claim was false, acted in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the claim, or acted in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity

Saulsbury Orchards & Almond Processing, Inc. v. Yeutter

917 F.2d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 29, 1990

We conclude that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Because we conclude that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we do not reach the question of whether the Act provides a comprehensive remedial scheme. See Bush v.

California Department of Water Resources v. Powerex Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2008

BC Hydro’s treasurer declared: Powerex’s earnings are consolidated with those of BC Hydro for purposes of establishing BC Hydro’s rates. . . . … Powerex’s employment policies do not obviously qualify it or disqualify it as an “organ” of British Columbia.

Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc.

674 F.2d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 1982

Defendants’ contention that Clipper’s papers are insufficient to qualify as a 59(e) motion is without merit. B. … Such a showing would merely establish that defendant’s conduct was subject to the antitrust laws. “[T]he absence of an immunity does not itself establish an antitrust offense.

United States v. Jay W. Wilson

392 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 4, 2005

While Wilson was assisting the agents, he secretly recorded his conversations with them. *1059 Wilson’s tape-recorded conversations and the testimony of both Wilson and the agents established that Wilson broached the topic … Consequently, he failed to clearly accept responsibility despite his cooperation with authorities.

Curiel v. the County of Contra Costa

362 F. App'x 824 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 21, 2010

established. … Thus, Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity. See Blankenhorn v.

Daniel Crowe v. Oregon State Bar

989 F.3d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 2021

“[N]ot all state-created or state-managed entities are immune from suit in federal court . . . . 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 … OSB “bear[s] the burden of proving the facts that establish its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.” ITSI TV Prods., Inc. v. Agric. Ass’ns, 3 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993).

Mark S. Allen v. Gold Country Casino the Berry Creek Rancheria of Tyme Maidu Indians Mattie Mayhew

464 F.3d 1044 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 29, 2006

When the tribe establishes an entity to conduct certain activities, the entity is immune if it functions as an arm of the tribe. See, e.g., Marcean v. Blackfeet Hous. … phrase clearly contemplating suits against the Casino.

Keith L. Prescott v. United States

973 F.2d 696 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 1992

What it does mean is that a plaintiff may not invoke federal jurisdiction by pleading matters that clearly fall within the exceptions of § 2680. … exception and thus immune from suit.”

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Gavin Newsom

919 F.3d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2019

Rather, that regulatory right is qualified by the existence of a valid tribal- state compact. See id. Numerous other sections in IGRA support this view. … We found that paragraph (3)(C)(vii) was “not ambiguous,” that the RSTF “clearly” fell within its scope, and that there was no ambiguity to construe in the tribe’s favor. Id.