Case law

Karluk Mayweathers v. J. Woodford

393 F. App'x 425 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government workers from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity if it was not clearly established that race-based differentiation is unconstitutional).

Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. Teledyne-Continental Motors, A Division of Teledyne Industries, Inc.

805 F.2d 1386 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 1986

Since appellant’s representative is not so authorized, he simply does not qualify under this regulation. … Establishing one would tend to exclude the other.

Brandborg v. Bull

276 F. App'x 618 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 2008

Finally, Bull argues that he is entitled to dismissal based on qualified immunity because neither the right to speak at, nor the right to attend, the press conference was clearly established.

United States v. Velda Mapelli

971 F.2d 284 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

Zielezinski, 740 F.2d 727, 734 (9th Cir.1984) (requiring evidentiary hearing at which prosecutor must establish independent sources of information). … We must uphold the district court findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Crowson, 828 F.2d at 1429 . But in this case, there were no findings of fact, and could be none, since there was no evidence.

Herman Roberson v. City of Hawthorne

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 22, 2023

Officer Lazorek is, however, entitled to qualified immunity. … Officer Michalczak did not violate Roberson’s constitutional rights—let alone clearly established ones. So we should have reversed the denial of qualified immunity for both officers.

Terbush v. United States

516 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

The FTCA includes a number of exceptions to this broad waiver of sovereign immunity, including the oft litigated “discretionary function exception,” which provides immunity from suit for “[a]ny claim ... based upon the exercise … According to the government, the maintenance of the wastewater system is clearly within the exception in Whisnant .

Nathan S. Jacobson v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a Political Subdivision of the States of Nevada and California, the State of Nevada, and the County of Washoe, Melvin F. Jones, Verona M. Jones, His Wife, Leo D. Wyrsch, Cora E. Wyrsch, His Wife, Paul W. Gould, Lola E. Gould, His Wife, Joseph Trinchero, Delores G. Trinchero, His Wife, Paul Williams and Lanai Corporation, a California Corporation v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (t.r.p.a.), a Political Subdivision of the States of Nevada and California, California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the State of California, Placer County and Eldorado County, Lake Country Estates, Inc., a Corporation, and Country Club Estates, a Partnership v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, County of El Dorado, and State of California, Layton-Tahoe Properties v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, State of California, State of Nevada, County of Placer, and United States of America

558 F.2d 928 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 5, 1977

. 81 We also believe that these individuals should be given the same qualified immunity espoused in Scheuer v. … If the only complaint, as it relates to their executive function, is the formal enforcement of the ordinances they enacted, qualified immunity would absolve these individuals from liability.

Cost Management Services, Inc. v. Washington Natural Gas Company

99 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 7, 1996

Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), “exempts qualifying state and local government regulation from federal antitrust;'even if the regulation at issue compels an.otherwise clear violation of the federal … United States, 471 U.S. 48 , 105 S.Ct. 1721 , 85 L.Ed.2d 36 (1985), the court stated that in order to satisfy the first prong of the test, WNG must show only that Washington “clearly intends to displace competition in [the

Tonya Shirar v. Miguel Guerrero

673 F. App'x 673 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 15, 2016

We review a denial of qualified immunity de novo. Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 550 (9th Cir. 2010). … On the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity, it has long been established that shooting an unarmed suspect who poses no danger to officers violates the Fourth Amendment. See Tennessee v.

Logging Co. v. Barker

366 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 24, 1966

These were acts which were clearly within the perimeter of those defendants' duties, or, as put by the Fifth Circuit in Norton v. … To establish it requires more than inference that certain official acts were maliciously performed.

Smith v. Ricks

31 F.3d 1478 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 11, 1994

The law clearly entitled Good Samaritan to immunity, and Dr. Smith could point to no evidence of an antitrust conspiracy. Consequently, Dr. … The amount of the award shall be established by a supplemental order. AFFIRMED WITH SANCTIONS. .

Randolph v. Budget Rent-A-Car

97 F.3d 319 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

The district court’s findings of fact relevant to its determination of subject matter jurisdiction must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Wang v. Reno, 81 F.3d 808 , 813 (9th Cir.1996). … The FSIA creates a statutory presumption that a foreign state is immune from suit unless one of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605 to 1607 applies. 28 U.S.C. § 1604 .

Michelle Renee Sigman, on Her Behalf and as Guardian Ad Litem for James Douglas Sigman, a Minor, and as Personal Representative of Taylor McKenzie Sigman Deceased James Douglas Sigman a Minor Taylor McKenzie Sigman, Deceased, Planlaintiffs-Appelants v. United States of America, Lorraine T. Murray, a Single Woman v. United States of America, Hazel Roberts, Wife Harold Roberts, Husband v. United States of America, Marilyn Moe v. United States of America, Marlene Moe, on Her Own Behalf Melisa Moe, Minor, by and Through Her Guardian Ad Litem Kelly Moe, Minor, by and Through the Guardian Ad Litem v. United States of America, Selma Jones, on Her Own Behalf, and Bryan Joseph (Bj) Hansen, a Minor, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem v. United States of America, Eva Irene Walch, Plaintiff-Appelant v. United States of America, Tiffany Williams, Individually and on Behalf of Sean Williams and Hali Williams, Her Minor Children v. United States of America, Ruth Gerken v. United States of America, Sandee Wold, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Anthony Zuchetto and Janessa Zucchetto, United States of America, Rande Lindner, as the Duly Appointed and Qualified Personal Representative of the Estae of Anita Louise Lindner, Deceased, for the Benefit of Rande Lindner, Anastasia L. Lindner, Richard L. Lindner, Robert M. Lindner and Candice M. Lindner v. United States of America, Samuel Alton Spencer, a Minor by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem v. United States of America, Selma Jones v. United States of America, Gregory Paul McCarron Husband Gregory Pual McCarron on Behalf of Ryan William John McCarron His Minor Child as Personal Represtatvie of the Estae of Christian Franics McCarron Deceased Echo Ann McCarron Wife Ryan William John McCarron a Minor Child, Christian Francis Mc Carron, Deceased, Estate of v. United States of America, Heather Ford, a Single Woman, Ledeana Kelley, Wife Shawn Kelley, Husband Rebecca Kelley, a Minor v. United States of America, Ashely N. Williams, a Minor, by and Through Her Natural Father and Guardian Ad Litem, Sean Williams Sean Tyler Williams, Guardian Ad Litem v. United States of America, Michelle Renee Sigman, on Her Behalf and as Guardian Ad Litem for James Douglas Sigman, a Aminor, and as Personal Arepresentative of Taylor McKenzie Asigman, Deceased James Douglas Asigman, a Minor Taylor Amckenzie Sigman, Deceased Lorraine T. Murray, a Single Awoman Hazel Roberts, Wife Aharold Roberts, Husband Pauline Brown Marilyn Moe Amarlene Moe, on Her Own Behalf Melissa Moe, Minor, by and Athrough Her Guardian Ad Litem Akelly Moe, Minor, by and Athrough the Guardian Ad Litem Aselma Jones, on Her Own Behalf Aand Bryan Joseph (Bj) Hansen, a Aminor, by and Through His Aguardian Ad Litem Eva Irene Walch Tiffany Williams, Individually and on Behalf of Sean Williams and Hali Williams, Her Minor Children Ruth Gerken Sandee Wold, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Children Rande Lindner, as the Duly Appointed and Qualified Personal Representative of the Estate of Anita Louise Lindner, Deceased, for the Benefit of Rande Lindner, Anastasia L. Lindner, Richard L. Lindner, Robert M. Lindner and Candice M. Lindner Samuel Alton Spencer, a Minor by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem Selma Jones J. Arthur Zucchetto Gregory Paul McCarron Husband Gregory Paul McCarron on Behalf of Ryan William John McCarron His Minor Child as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christian Francis McCarron Deceased Echo Ann McCarron Wife Ryan William John McCarron a Minor Child Christian Francis McCarron Deceased, Estate of Heather Ford, a Single Woman Ledeana Kelley, Wife Shawn Kelley, Husband Rebecca Kelley, a Minor Ashley N. Williams, a Minor, by and Through Her Natural Father and Guardian Ad Litem, Sean Williams Sean Tyler Williams, Guardian Ad Litem v. United States

208 F.3d 760 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 29, 2000

The Federal Tort Claims Act 18 Suits against the United States and its agencies are barred by sovereign immunity unless permitted by an explicit waiver of immunity from suit. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 127 L. … These cases are all examples of the now well-established principle that the discretionary function exception is intended to shield the government from liability for the exercise of governmental discretion, not to shield the

Daraxa Lee Mattice, by and Through Her Guardians Ad Litem, Gregory G. Mattice and June Mattice v. United States of America, Department of the Interior

969 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 14, 1992

That activity clearly falls within the scope of the statute. 2. Paved, Public Road Mattice argues that the statute does not apply to paved and public federal roads. … Mattice has not offered evidence to establish that the government consciously failed to act to avoid the danger either.

Candace Carby v. County of Butte Dale Wyrauch, Sheriff Ron Barris, Sheriff

48 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 22, 1995

Before: SKOPIL, NORRIS, and HALL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Deputy Sheriffs Dale Wyrauch and Ron Barris appeal the district court's denial of their qualified immunity claim and the court's ruling that certain documents … I. 3 Where material issues of fact prevent a determination of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the case must proceed to trial. Act Up!/ Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. David Benitez-Perez

367 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2004

To determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense for the 16 level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A), we apply the categorical approach established in Taylor v. … establish that the conviction is a predicate conviction for enhancement purposes.’ ” Id.

Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 4, 2025

Moreover, the immunity granted by § 4(b) is an immunity from specific antitrust laws, which presumes, of course, that the relevant newspapers both operate in the same relevant market. … Taken in context, these two differences in language between § 4(a) and § 4(b) are clearly interrelated, and they confirm that § 4(a)’s proviso should be construed as applying only to § 4(a).

Cohen v. United States

201 F.2d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 1953

The crime was established by a wealth of independent evidence, as we have indicated. Spriggs v. … The distinction is clearly drawn in the case upon which appellant relies. Chief Justice Hughes states in Sorrells v.

Gary Easley v. County of Santa Clara

702 F. App'x 552 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 28, 2017

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for monetary damages unless the plaintiff establishes that (1) the conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” when … Chapel, 55 F.3d 1416, 1417 (9th Cir. 1995), Deputy Wallace is entitled to qualified immunity since there is no clearly established law that a warrant was required under the facts of the case.

Mike Hernandez v. George F. Denton, Director of Corrections, Paul J. Morris, Warden, Eddie Ylst, in His Official and Individual Capacity, Mr. Hartman

919 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 1990

I have previously observed that “[irrespective of the outcome of this litigation, it must be acknowledged that Hernandez has established a world record capable of qualifying for the Guiness Book of Records: the only person … Examples of the former class are claims against which it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit, see, e.g. Williams v.