Case law

Anthony Defrancesco v. Robert C. Robbins

136 F.4th 933 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2025

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … established’ for qualified-immunity purposes.”

Price v. Akaka

3 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity As the Supreme Court stated in Harlow v. … First of all, an Attorney General’s opinion cannot by itself establish “clearly established law.” See Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau v.

Tekle ex rel. Tekle v. United States

457 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 11, 2006

“[I]n the absence of binding precedent, we ‘look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits … The officer argued that he was entitled to immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that it was an unconstitutional use of force for a police officer to point a gun at a resident’s head during a lawful

Jones v. City of North Las Vegas

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2026

Because defendants lacked an exigent circumstance to search plaintiffs’ yard under clearly established law at the time of the incident, they were not entitled to qualified immunity. … Under these standards, the Defendant Officers are clearly entitled to qualified immunity.

Romero v. Kitsap County

931 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 1991

However, when qualified immunity is at stake, a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established. Tribble, 860 F.2d at 324 . … By extension, the qualified immunity defense extends to conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory, constitutional, or treaty-based rights. .

Luna v. Thurien

129 F. App'x 381 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 27, 2005

If so, we must then determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Id. … Because the facts construed in Luna’s favor establish a violation of Lima’s clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Thurien is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jacquelin K. Lindsey v. Donald L. "Pat" Shalmy, Clark County Manager, and Cliff Rives

29 F.3d 1382 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

DISCUSSION I The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … .clearly established by 1988.

F.E. Trotter, Inc. v. Watkins

869 F.2d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 1989

were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Since no cases have so held, the violation was not clearly established, thus immunizing Navy appellees.

Daniella Slater v. Shannon Deasey

943 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2019

Under the qualified immunity standards that have been clearly established by the Supreme Court, the district court’s dismissal of this action should have been affirmed. … The first of these rules is the more general principle— applicable to all qualified immunity cases—“that clearly established law should not be defined at a high level of generality.” White, 137 S.

James Haynes Camarillo v. Daniel J. McCarthy Director

998 F.2d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 1993

The defense of qualified immunity was not waived. See id. II. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages, unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Magno J. Ortega, M.D. v. Dennis Michael O'connor, M.D. And Richard Friday

146 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 26, 1998

II To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “the law was clearly established” at the time of the violation of the plaintiffs statutory or constitutional right, such that “a reasonably competent … ’s conduct clearly established?

Philip Rogers Scalice v. John Doe Davies, Sgt., Bill Weber Kurt Peterson, Superintendent Larry Kincheloe Linda Buccini, Defendants-Respondents

24 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 1994

Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity was granted by the district court. 1 We affirm. 3 We need only reach the issue of qualified immunity with respect to Scalice's claims against defendant … Even assuming that a policy prohibiting catalogs might violate a prisoner's First Amendment rights, we cannot say that such rights are so clearly established that Scalice's action survives defendant's qualified immunity defense

Kent Alexander v. William Perrill and Luis Rivera

916 F.2d 1392 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 10, 1990

The prison officials moved for summary judgment arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Alexander’s rights were not “clearly established” and that, in any event, they acted reasonably in response to … The issue before us only involves the question whether a qualified immunity defense bars the claim. The issue, thus, as we have said earlier, is only whether there was a clearly established duty to investigate.

Anastausia Sepulveda v. R. Ramirez, Cresa B. Appleby, Parole Agent Jim Ludwig

967 F.2d 1413 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 26, 1992

We hold that Officer Ludwig was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. At the time of Officer Ludwig’s alleged actions, Ninth Circuit law clearly established Sepulveda’s right to bodily privacy. … Any right she may have in not having a parole officer observe her while she produced a urine sample, however, in my view is not so “clearly established” as to abrogate appellants’ qualified immunity.

Julius L. Finkelstein v. Louis P. Bergna

924 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 29, 1991

The district court correctly concluded that Finkelstein alleged a violation of clearly established law and we accordingly affirm the denial of qualified immunity on the liberty interest claim. … II The district court also concluded that Bergna was not entitled to qualified *1453 immunity on the first amendment claim. Because the law was not clearly established in 1982, we reverse.

Kathleen Whalen v. John McMullen

907 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 2018

“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law  WHALEN V. … The right Whalen asserts was not clearly established, and McMullen is entitled to qualified immunity from this suit. 26 WHALEN V. MCMULLEN III.

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8020, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,778 Sue Kruse and Lance Caspary, on Behalf of Themselves and Their Minor Son Kanoa v. State of Hawai'i

68 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 12, 1995

When a public official asserts qualified immunity from liability in a Sec. 1983 action, we must determine whether (1) the law governing the official's conduct was clearly established and (2) whether under that law, an official … Clearly Established Right 32 While the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been "clearly established" in a "particularized" sense, "this is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified

V-1 Oil Co. v. Smith

114 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 1997

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not a defense. As such, the justifications for the doctrine of qualified immunity demand that we exercise jurisdiction over Smith’s appeal. See Chateaubriand v. … The law was not clearly established when Smith acted. Qualified immunity insulates Smith from civil liability for his actions. *858 IV We reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment.

Alston v. Read

663 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 14, 2011

[2] When evaluating a denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, our review is limited to the “purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established law.” … The qualified immunity inquiry is two-pronged. We must ask whether “the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether “the right was clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Tony Velasquez v. John Senko

813 F.2d 1509 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1987

The court found that appellants failed to address the pertinent issue for a claim of qualified immunity: whether the law they were accused of violating was clearly established. … qualified immunity claim meets Cohen "separate from the merits" test because it involves only "legal determination that a given proposition of law was not clearly established"); id.