Case law

Standard Alaska Production Co. v. Schaible

874 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 21, 1989

The district court found that of the 192 licensed optometrists in Alabama, 92 were employed by a business establishment. None belonged to the Association. … The Supreme Court concluded that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. Id. at 579 , 93 S.Ct. at 1698 .

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.

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.

United States v. Alexander Oriho

969 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2020

This record straightforwardly establishes that the repatriation order is a “pre-trial order restraining assets,” appealable under § 1292(a)(1). Roth, 912 F.2d at 1133. … Oriho contends that the district court clearly erred in its broad application of the exception, and we agree.

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).

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.

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.

Koiro v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

671 F. App'x 671 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 21, 2016

A qualified immunity defense must be denied if: (1) the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, show the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the … And, Koiro’s “right to be free from the application of non-trivial force for engaging in mere passive resistance was clearly established” before this incident occurred. Gravelet-Blondin v.

United States v. Carol Dubay Pastos and John W. Pastos, D/B/A Carol's Country Corner, and Security State Bank of Polson and Lake County

781 F.2d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 28, 1986

The Effect of Federal Laws and Regulations We agree with the district court that federal law clearly applies in this case. … Since a debtor must pay the debt in full to qualify for redemption, the right does not provide immunity to defeat an obligation.

Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho v. Idaho

42 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 1994

The Tribe names the state and the Agencies as defendants, and is clearly attempting to sue them in federal court. … However, to the extent that Tindal alleged a violation of a federal right, it clearly remains valid.

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation v. Thomas Ralph Adsit

668 F.2d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 22, 1982

waiver of sovereign immunity, an Indian tribe cannot be sued. … , at the expense of its basic right to sovereign immunity.

Karen Haugen v. Molly Fields

366 F. App'x 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 22, 2010

Qualified immunity shields a government official from suits for damages unless her official conduct violates a constitutional right that is “clearly established,” meaning it is “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official … immunity because it violated no 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights); see also Miller v.

In Re Grand Jury Appearance of Alvin S. Michaelson, Esquire

511 F.2d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 1975

‘It is well established that the privilege protects against real dangers, not remote and speculative possibilities.’ Zicarelli v. … It is well established that the privilege protects against real danger, not remote or speculative possibilities.”

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.

Avalos v. Baca

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (holding that “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, sum- mary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate”); see also Pearson v. … Ct. 808, 816 (2009) (noting that if the plaintiff establishes a violation of a consti- tutional right, “the court must decide whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct

Delia L. Fernandez v. Wynn Oil Company, a Corporation, and Wynn's International, Inc., a Corporation

653 F.2d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 17, 1981

. § 2000e, a party complaining of discrimination by disparate treatment establishes a prima facie case by showing that (1) she was within a protected group; (2) she applied and was qualified for a job for which the company … If an applicant is not qualified for the job in question, she has failed to establish a prima facie case. Morita v.

Phong Lam v. United States

979 F.3d 665 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 28, 2020

As a result, the DFE immunized the FBI’s actions. … And as the panel explained, once the Park officials undertook to inspect the trees in the park, they had to follow the established policies. Id.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Craft

157 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 1998

The district court’s findings are binding unless clearly erroneous. … Moreover, the district court made a specific factual finding that the Crafts had not established any actual damages such as would be allowable, and the Crafts have not demonstrated that this finding was clearly erroneous.