Case law

Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 2026

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the FSIA does not require a plaintiff to establish minimum contacts over and above the contacts already required by the FSIA’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity before … The parties agree that Antrix is wholly owned by India and therefore qualifies as a foreign state under the FSIA. As relevant here, the FSIA includes an “arbitration exception” to foreign sovereign immunity.

Brian Forrett v. Linford Richardson, Terry Frizell Ronald O. Loveridge Jack Clarke

112 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 28, 1997

At the close of all of the evidence, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that they did not violate Forrett’s Fourth Amendment rights and were entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity in any event.

Michael M. Furman v. Tana Wood

190 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 1, 1999

We will disturb this decision only if it was “contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). … This negative implication, however, hardly qualifies as clearly established” law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

United States v. Croft

124 F.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 1997

Immunity for Defense Witnesses. … The transactional immunity they sought would clearly affect the charges against them. The government did not improperly distort the fact-finding process in denying them that immunity. V.

Peter Harrell v. Southern Oregon University

474 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 20, 2012

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the purported constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011). … The “clearly established” standard is not satisfied here and thus, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. Harrell alleges that his First Amendment constitutional rights were violated by the Appellees.

Marcus Garvey Square, Inc. v. Winston Burnett Construction Co. of California, Inc.

595 F.2d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 18, 1979

Clearly these statutes were not intended to protect a general contractor like Burnett from any identifiable harm. … There clearly was a time when these proceeds were within the reach of the federal defendants.

Keeton v. University Of Nevada System

150 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 1998

The legislative history and development of the ADEA clearly establish that Congress relied upon the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in enacting the 1974 ADEA amendments. 9 Defendants rely on the ADEA's express … Thus, the Defendants have not sustained their burden of establishing their entitlement to Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Hyland, 117 F.3d at 413 .

Ronald Oertwich v. Traditional Village of Togiak

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 30, 2022

Oertwich’s § 1983 Claim Oertwich asserts that the district court erred by dismissing his § 1983 claim based on qualified immunity because he sufficiently alleged that the individual tribal officers violated his clearly … established constitutional rights.

Daniel Wilson v. Bullhead City Police Department

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 23, 2024

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established rights. See Plumhoff v. … Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778-79 (2014) (defendants sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a right that was clearly established; “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established

Andrea Heath v. City of Desert Hot Springs

618 F. App'x 882 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 29, 2015

B The individual officers ask us to grant them qualified immunity on appeal, contending the law was not clearly established at the time of their conduct. See Saucier v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (qualified immunity does not attach if the facts alleged demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s misconduct).

Baker v. City of Blaine

205 F.3d 1138 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2000

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a state court’s decision that a defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel is contrary to clearly established federal law. … standard of 'contrary to ... clearly established Federal law applies to pure questions of law.

Springs Ambulance Service, Inc. v. City of Rancho Mirage

745 F.2d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 25, 1984

Brown immunity: To prove that a policy is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed, the City must demonstrate not only the existence of a state policy to displace competition with regulation, but also that the legislature … As originally enacted, that section stated that “The City Council shall establish and keep on file with the City Clerk, a maximum rate schedule” for ambulance service.

Roberto Silva-Pereira v. Loretta E. Lynch

827 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 2016

Ultimately, 82 out of El Salvador’s 84 legislators voted to suspend Silva’s legislative immunity. … Such circumstances clearly distinguish Silva’s case from instances in which we have found the BIA’s credibility determination based on an omission to be unsupported.

Big Spring v. United States

767 F.2d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 31, 1985

. §§ 331-358 (1982), established procedures for selection of allotments of reservation land to individual Indians. … Until recently, there was some doubt as to whether section 2401(a) always applied to section 345 claims, because this circuit, without discussing the statute, has reached the merits of claims that clearly had accrued more

Marilyn Injeyan v. City of Laguna Beach

645 F. App'x 577 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 23, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … An officer is thus entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) there is a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of

Sablan v. Department of Finance of Northern Mariana Islands

856 F.2d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 2, 1988

the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America. … On appeal, the various government officials who are named in their individual capacity do not raise any claim of absolute or qualified immunity.

Association Des Eleveurs De Canards Et D'Oies Du Quebec v. Harris

729 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2013

Eleventh Amendment Immunity The district court determined that the Attorney General is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and did not address the State of California’s or the Governor’s immunity claims. … “It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes Comm.

United Marine Mutual Indemnity Ass'n v. Donovan

701 F.2d 791 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 15, 1983

It is asserted that P & I’s are so well established that a requirement of oversight by the Secretary would add little to the self-regulation and cross-insurance the P & I voluntarily undertakes. … To exempt P & I’s from the threat of losing its right to operate “for good cause shown” would be to grant them a surprising immunity and seems not likely to have been Congress’ intent.

Sessions Tank Liners, Inc. Dba Southwest Tank Liners, Inc. v. Joor Manufacturing, Inc.

827 F.2d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 2, 1987

In any event, a more recent Supreme Court opinion has clearly established that a person’s petitioning immunity does not protect him from at least some deliberate misrepresentations made in pursuit of executive action. … Because such misrepresentations also fail to serve Noerr's policy or statutory interests, we see no reason to immunize them in antitrust if •they are not to be immune in libel.

Rivera v. Anderson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 9, 2026

Manual directing counties to follow the challenged statute established the requisite connection with enforcement. … But the President clearly did not promulgate the provision. And in Los Angeles County Bar Ass’n v.