Case law

Harvey v. Brewer

605 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 27, 2010

.): Arizona’s Constitution provides: “No person who is adjudicated an incapacitated person shall be qualified to vote at any election, nor shall any person convicted of treason or felony, be qualified to vote at any election … Section 5 of the Act “established conditions on which the former Confederate States would be readmitted to representation in Congress.” Richardson, 418 U.S. at 49 , 94 S.Ct. 2655 .

A & E Pacific Construction Co. v. Saipan Stevedore Co.

888 F.2d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 19, 1989

The Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America (“Covenant”), Pub.L. … such immunity is set aside by an agency or court.

Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. Mark Brown, in His Official Capacity as Director of the State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries

124 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 15, 1997

Brown is also required to: [Supervise the providing of prompt and efficient care and treatment ... and to that end shall, from time to time, establish and promulgate and supervise the administration of printed forms, rules … Indeed, the Lanham Act contemplates suit against state officials even more clearly than the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365 , which we held not to contain any Congressional limitation on Ex parte Young actions.

United States v. Robert Benveniste

564 F.2d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 11, 1977

The court denied appellant’s motion to grant her immunity. … It is well established that the trial court has no power to grant immunity to a witness whose testimony the defendant may wish to offer and the Government cannot be forced to grant such immunity. E. g., United States v.

Donna Klecka v. Daniel Cox

696 F. App'x 311 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2017

Plaintiff Donna Klecka appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment, based on qualified immunity, to Defendant Daniel Cox. … court, we conclude that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore summary judgment was appropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.

Sidney Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Arizona Corporation Commission

951 F.2d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 1991

The Commission clearly meets this test. A money judgment against the Commission would be satisfied out of state funds. See Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 40-108, 40-109. … In order to qualify as “plain, speedy, and efficient,” the state remedy need only meet certain minimum procedural requirements. See Rosewell v.

San Antonio Community Hospital v. Southern California District Council of Carpenters

137 F.3d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 17, 1998

Here, too, it is clearly wrong. There was indeed a “labor dispute” involving the hospital. … The court affirmed a ruling of summary judgment in favor of the police on the ground of qualified immunity because the police "established that their conduct was objectively • reasonable” and the plaintiffs failed to "produc

Earle A. Partington v. Joseph Gedan & Howard T. Chang, Jeffrey Lau & Earle A. Partington v. Herman T.F. Lum, Edward H. Nakamura, Frank D. Padgett, Yoshimi Hayashi, James H. Wakatsuki, Jeremy T. Harrison, Charlene M. Norris, Joseph M. Gedan & Mark J. Bennett

961 F.2d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 1992

Not only does the Rooker- Feldman doctrine prevent us from considering the merits of the underlying claim, Partington cannot get the money back because the Eleventh Amendment clearly grants the states immunity from retroactive … We concluded that those entities were "clearly immune as agencies of the state." Id. at 761 .

State of Alaska v. Eeoc

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 2009

But Dellmuth and Atascadero “do[ ] not preclude congressional elimination of sovereign immunity in statutory text that clearly subjects States to suit for monetary damages, though without explicit reference to state sovereign … chosen or appointed, by a person elected to public office in any State or political subdivi- sion of any State by the qualified voters thereof— (1) to be a member of the elected official’s personal staff;

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.”

Tagupa v. Odo

95 F.3d 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 8, 1996

Qualified immunity "requires a two-part analysis: 1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? 2) Under that law, could a reasonable [official] have believed the conduct was lawful?" Act Up! … In short, Odo's actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. 11 We have jurisdiction to grant qualified immunity although this is an interlocutory appeal.

Fang ex rel. Fang v. United States

140 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 31, 1998

In addition to the staffing and equipment levels set by the regulations, the Park Service established certain protocols which dictate the EMTs’ required response to a variety of medical conditions and situations. … No particular course of conduct is clearly mandated sufficient to remove this claim from the discretionary function exception under the first prong of the Berkovitz test.

Mark Oyama v. University of Hawaii

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2015

The University has not asserted a qualified immunity defense on appeal. At oral argument, the University expressly urged the panel not to consider qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we do not reach the issue of qualified immunity. 14 OYAMA V. UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII including the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood School District v.

Blair Hays v. J. Bonnifield

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 24, 2025

established, so Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. 2 1131 (9th Cir. 2015). … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Adrian Chaparro v. C. Ducart

695 F. App'x 254 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 14, 2017

We review de novo both summary judgment and an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity. Hughes v. Kisela, 841 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Enlow v. … See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly established only if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that

Manuel Ramirez v. Escondido Union School Dist.

648 F. App'x 669 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 18, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A grant of qualified immunity is appropriate where either 1) the facts that a plaintiff has shown do not make out a violation of a constitutional right or 2) the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of

United National Maintenance, Inc. v. San Diego Convention Center, Inc.

749 F.3d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 2014

The Supreme Court has articulated a two-part test to determine whether nonstate actors are entitled to this immunity: “First, the challenged restraint must be one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy … Only the latter qualifies for immunity.

Annie Laura KIMBROUGH, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. SECRETARY OF the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, Defendant/Appellant

764 F.2d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 28, 1985

Thus, the clearly erroneous standard of review applies. We hold that the district court’s finding of discrimination was not clearly erroneous. The court found that although Capt. … These findings were not clearly erroneous. The record establishes that the district court did not consider witnesses’ skin color when it made its findings of fact.

Schmidt v. Oakland Unified School District

662 F.2d 550 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 5, 1981

School board members are entitled to a qualified immunity from money damages in section 1983 actions, for actions taken in good faith. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 ,, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). … Shortly after the district court decision, the Supreme Court held that a local government body does not enjoy even a qualified immunity from liability under section 1983 for actions taken in good faith. See Owen v.

Stella Satter v. State of Washington Department of Ecology

462 F. App'x 685 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2011

Nonetheless, Slattery is entitled to qualified immunity for this claimed violation if his actions did not violate a “clearly established” right. … established’ to preclude qualified immunity . . . .”