Case law

Russell v. Hug

275 F.3d 812 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 4, 2002

The Plan directs the Chief Judge of the District to appoint members of an Administration Committee, which is responsible for "establish[ing], maintain[ing], and administer[ing] a panel of private attorneys " who will represent … Russell qualified under this provision. 2 Russell does not argue on appeal that it was error for the district court to deny leave to amend. 3 Congress in drafting the CJA clearly understood "plans" and "rules" to mean different

John Doe v. Regents of the University

891 F.3d 1147 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

First, the court ruled that the § 1983 claim against Perkin in her official capacity did not run afoul of the Eleventh Amendment, nor was Perkin entitled to qualified or quasi-judicial immunity. … A party must exhaust judicial remedies by filing a § 1094.5 petition, the exclusive and “established process for judicial review” of an agency decision. Id. at 880 (citing Westlake Cmty. Hosp. v.

Lytle v. Carl

382 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 1, 2004

The court further granted summary judgment to Cram and Carl as individuals based on qualified immunity, but denied summary judgment to the remaining individual defendants and the District. … In an earlier appeal, we held that the remaining individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, but allowed proceedings against the District to continue. Lytle v. Wondrash, 182 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.1999).

SAFEWAY PORTLAND EMPLOYEES’ FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, a Federal Credit Union, Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee

506 F.2d 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 18, 1974

The FDIC is clearly a federal agency and within the coverage of the FTCA. Davis v. FDIC, 369 F.Supp. 277, 279 (D.Colo., 1974); Freeling v. … Federal Housing Authority: Appellant seeks to avoid the statutory policy of governmental immunity clearly established in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680 , by several arguments directed toward excluding the facts

N. M. v. Guillemin

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 7, 2026

With respect to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim, we conclude that Guillemin is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Miller’s clearly established rights. … Because the right was not clearly established, Guillemin is entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

King v. Garfield County Public Hospital District No. 1

641 F. App'x 696 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 24, 2015

Defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. Because Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, we reverse. … Here, no clearly established law put Defendants on notice that Plaintiff was entitled to more process than he received.

In the Matter of Grand Jury Witness, Anthony Russo, Jr. Anthony Russo, Jr. v. United States

448 F.2d 369 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 17, 1971

he should have been granted the right to summon witnesses to establish that the grand jury’s investigation did not pertain to alleged violations of the Communications Act. … In any event, we find that the government sufficiently established that the grand jury’s investigation fell within the confines of § 409(1).

Loren Shirk v. United States

773 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 8, 2014

established meaning of these terms.” … In this way, the § 314 analysis is similar to a qualified-immunity analysis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . See Pearson v.

RICHARD K. LOVELL v. SUSAN CHANDLER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE STATE OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII, DOUGLAS D. DELMENDO, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, BY HIS APPOINTED GUARDIAN — ZOSIMA ORILLO DELMENDO v. SUSAN CHANDLER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE STATE OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII

303 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

Eleventh Amendment Immunity 28 The State asserts sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment against Lovell and Delmendo's claims under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the RA. … To establish a violation of § 504 of the RA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is handicapped within the meaning of the RA; (2) she is otherwise qualified for the benefit or services sought; (3) she was denied the benefit

Estate of Brandon Tranberg-Hoadley v. Martin-Leal

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 2, 2026

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law.” Zorn v. Linton, 146 S. Ct. 926, 930 (2026) (per curiam). … Neither Horton nor this Court’s precedents support qualified immunity here. “It is clearly established that the Eighth Amendment protects against deliberate indifference to a detainee's serious risk of suicide.”

Ronwin v. Shapiro

657 F.2d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 1, 1981

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS Because the district court concluded that the entire action was barred by the eleventh amendment, it did not reach the question of privilege. … This evidence might be important to establish that Dickinson and Shapiro were “officers, agents and employees” of the State within the meaning of Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-621 A.3 (Supp. 1980), which provides indemnification to

Taiwan v. United States District Court

128 F.3d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 1997

Therefore, TECRO is immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, unless one of the exceptions established by the FSIA applies. … CONCLUSION The district court order is clearly .erroneous as a matter of law, because the court ordered Tsai to testify about matters within the scope of testimonial immunity accorded under Article 5(e) of the AIT-TECRO Agreement

Marcus S. Smith Hildegard U. Smith v. William Marshall, Jr., M.D.

885 F.2d 650 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 1989

Heller is clearly inapposite. The Heller court never reached the question whether a physician serving abroad was immune from suit because the plaintiff was unable to serve any of the individual defendants. … Second, in Baker , a key issue was whether FECA cases qualified under the “circumstances likely to preclude” language of section 1089(f) so that suit could be brought against the Army physician defendants.

Stephanie Daniel v. National Park Service

891 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 2018

Identity theft and fraudulent charges are concrete harms particularized to Daniel and establish a sufficient injury at the pleading stage. See generally Spokeo, 136 S. … THE FCRA DOES NOT CLEARLY WAIVE IMMUNITY FOR DANIEL’S SUIT We begin with the principle that our duty is “to construe statutes, not isolated provisions.” King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2489 (2015).

Snyder & Associates Acquisitions LLC v. United States

859 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 16, 2017

The wrongful death claim in Perkins easily qualified as a claim arising from the government’s tax collection efforts. See id. at 912-13 . … Section 2680(h) establishes an exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity for claims that “aris[e] out of ... misrepresentation.”

Thos. P. Gonzalez Corporation v. Consejo Nacional De Produccion De Costa Rica, and Sergio Quiros Maroto

614 F.2d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 1980

It has never attempted to qualify for the transaction of business within California. … Significantly, each of the immunity provisions in the bill, sections 1605-1607, requires some connection between the lawsuit and the United States, or an express or implied waiver by the foreign state of its immunity from

Corporacion Mexicana de Servicios Maritimos, S.A. de C.V. v. The M/T Respect

89 F.3d 650 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 1996

Thus Pemex-[Refining] is a subdivision of the United Mexican States and therefqre qualifies for foreign sovereign immunity under FSIA. The defendants have not contested this description of Pemex-Refining. … A review of the case shows that Pe-mex-Refining clearly waived part of its immunity by intervening and filing a claim against the defendants.

Saulsbury Orchards And Almond Processing, Inc. v. Clayton K. Yeutter

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

Id. 26 We conclude that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The matter is now enmeshed in the agency's appellate process 4 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

United States v. Wesley A. Plummer

941 F.2d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 1, 1991

The Supreme Court has established that the government may compel testimony in these circumstances, over the defendant’s objection, if it grants use and derivative use immunity to the defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 . … Factual determinations, including what the parties intended by an ambiguous contract, are accepted unless clearly erroneous. L.K. Comstock & Co. v.

Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund v. City of Alameda

730 F.3d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 2013

According to subsection (b), even if liability is established by statute, that liability is subject to the various specific governmental immunities set forth in the Government Claims Act or elsewhere. … (emphasis added).7 To rebuff this general rule, a liability-creating statute must clearly withdraw statutory immunities.