Case law

Lois Sharer v. State of Oregon

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 21, 2009

Section 504 [1] Section 504 provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of … Therefore, this testi- mony likewise fails to establish that Oregon waived immunity with respect to OPDS during the period of Sharer’s alleged discrimination. 5 Oregon Revised Statute § 138.500(5) was amended by the

David Mango v. Lilian Myers

584 F. App'x 369 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2014

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … Myers contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity because Mango’s constitutional right was not clearly established.

Hostin v. Arizona Schools for Deaf & Blind

9 F. App'x 757 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 2001

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Under Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. … meaning of the ADA; (2) he is qualified; and, (3) he was discriminated against because of his disability.

United States v. Albert Marchini

797 F.2d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 1986

(4) Was the jury’s finding of sufficient evidence to establish that appellant willfully and knowingly failed to report cash wages clearly erroneous? … “The findings of the trier of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Anderson, 642 F.2d 281, 285 (9th Cir.1981).

Steven Brown v. Department of Children Service

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 24, 2023

based on qualified immunity, which protects government officials from § 1983 liability “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … We may resolve the issue of qualified immunity based on the lack of clearly established law without reaching whether a constitutional violation occurred. See O’Doan v. Sanford, 991 F.3d 1027, 1036 (9th Cir. 2021).

Sepulveda v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n

878 F.2d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 1989

As we held above, the district court’s finding to the contrary on this issue was not clearly erroneous. … We cannot conclude that the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED. .

Jones Enterprises Inc. v. Atlas Service Corp.

442 F.2d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 1971

Appellants contend that they are immune from the assertion of in personam jurisdiction in Alaska, because none had sufficient contacts with Alaska to render it amenable to substituted process. … Although its effects were clearly felt in Hawaii, the alleged wrongful conduct took place outside of the forum.

Ronald Cree, Jr. Dalton Cree Jack Haggerty Tiin-Ma Logging Co. v. State of Washington David W. Waterbury Keith Qunell

990 F.2d 1256 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. … An officer acting under color of state law is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity even if his conduct violated the federal right asserted by the plaintiff, unless that right was so clearly established that a reasonable

Mills Music, Inc. v. State of Arizona and Arizona Coliseum and Exposition Center Board, a Body Politic Under and by Virtue of the State of Arizona

591 F.2d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 1979

As this action was prosecuted both against the State of Arizona and a political entity of the state, Mills’ action is clearly barred unless the State and the Coliseum Board have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity or … Thus, the Parden-Employees-Edelman trilogy establishes that the Eleventh Amendment immunity is waived when Congress has authorized suit against a class of defendants that includes states, and the state enters into the activity

Barron v. United States

654 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 27, 1981

Moreover, its finding (which is one of mixed law and fact) that the work being done by Barron was extra hazardous is not clearly erroneous. … Finally, we also hold that the district court’s finding that the employee was not contributorily negligent is not clearly erroneous. Id. at 1085 . III.

Moraga v. Minev

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2025

The Defendants, however, are entitled to qualified immunity if it was not clearly established that their actions or inactions were unconstitutional at the time of the violation. See Carley v. … Carley therefore controls and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.1 2.

Kerr Center Parents Ass'n v. Charles

897 F.2d 1463 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 1990

By virtue of this agreement, the State qualifies for receipt of federal funds for special education. … The Eleventh Amendment clearly would prohibit the district court from awarding the plaintiffs restitution for benefits which were wrongfully withheld in the past.

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States

895 F.2d 588 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 2, 1990

Sec. 2401 is a condition of the waiver of sovereign immunity, courts are reluctant to interpret the statute of limitations in a manner that extends the waiver beyond that which Congress clearly intended. … refer is whether the Tucker Act was itself a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Dichter-Mad Family Partners v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 12, 2013

adequacy of the plaintiff’s pleadings, and, In the FTCA immunity context, ‘‘[i]t is finding them to be insufficient under well-established that ‘the burden is on the Twombly, affirmed dismissal under the party … Circuit’s Ignatiev opinion re- qualified immunity ‘‘as much as possible in quires that district courts in that Circuit allow anticipation of a summary judgment mo- FTCA plaintiffs an opportunity

Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi

137 F.4th 996 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 2025

Only the fourth criterion, whether the alien has established “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative, is at issue in this appeal. … A For many years, we held that we lacked jurisdiction to consider whether an alien had established “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative under § 1229b(b)(1)(D).

Johnson v. Duffy

588 F.2d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 27, 1978

The requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should … The good faith defense is an aspect of qualified immunity from section 1983 liability that public officials enjoy if they are acting in compliance with a valid statute. (Procunier v.

David Barragan v. Robin Landry

361 F. App'x 849 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 8, 2010

After a careful de novo review of the record, the briefs, and arguments of the parties, we conclude that Landry is entitled to qualified immunity because the contours of the rights at issue in this case were not clearly … defendant qualified immunity.

Fairley v. Luman

281 F.3d 913 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 15, 2002

John presented evidence sufficient to establish the City’s warrant procedures constituted a “policy.” … This is true whether the officers are exonerated on the basis of qualified immunity, because they were merely negligent, or for other failure of proof. See Chew v.

International Franchise Ass'n v. City of Seattle

803 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2015

The decisions are not clearly reconcilable, with two district courts upholding prohibitions on retailers wishing to build large establishments, Turlock, 483 F. Supp. 2d at 1012–14; Hampton, 997 F. … Washington courts employ a two-step inquiry to determine whether a law violates the privileges and immunities clause: (1) whether the law in question involves a privilege or immunity; if not, the provision is not implicated

James Denby v. David Engstrom

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 5, 2025

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 for interlocutory orders denying qualified immunity, Mitchell v. … S. ____ (2025), 2025 WL 247502, at *4 (Jan. 21, 2025) (citing Hope and affirming that “[g]eneral legal principles can constitute clearly established law” in the rigorous AEDPA context).