Case law

Dith v. City of Downey

171 F. App'x 208 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 16, 2006

The Diths also argue that the magistrate judge lacked probable cause to issue the search warrant for their apartment because Romero’s sworn statement of probable cause did not establish the reliability of his confidential … Accordingly, without needing to address qualified immunity or municipal liability, we affirm summary judgment for the de *210 fendants on the Diths’ claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause.

Douglas Gary Housley v. George E. Killinger, Warden

972 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 22, 1992

We find no error in the district court's decision. 6 Killinger must be granted qualified immunity if his conduct did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining whether Housley's constitutional rights were clearly established, we do more than inquire whether the general right of access to the courts was clearly established at the time of Killinger's conduct.

Richard Collender v. Shawn Neel

605 F. App'x 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 2015

Thus, the district court properly determined Neel is not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that the constitutional right was not clearly established. … Ct. 3, 4–5 (2013) (per curiam) ("‘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

United States v. Luis Alvaro Hoyos

573 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 24, 1978

First, he did not establish with any precision what Castro’s testimony would be or whether, in fact, Castro had unconditionally agreed to testify in Hoyos’ defense. See United States v. … A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

John Filler v. Miren Unsworth

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

The Fillers contend the district court erred in finding their due process rights were not clearly established and Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the right was not clearly established, the district court properly found that Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

San Diego House of Hope Mamie Y. Thomas Richard Thomas Fred Thomas v. San Diego Department of Social Services, and Oksana Smith

959 F.2d 241 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 1992

for each of these charges. 13 Smith must be granted qualified immunity for the charges in the complaint if her conduct did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In determining whether the House of Hope's constitutional rights were clearly established, we do more than ask whether the general right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race was clearly established at the

Kimberly Zion v. County of Orange

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

Higgins would therefore have been on notice that his conduct was unlawful and defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity. … The Fourth Amendment right here was “clearly established.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (per curiam).

Life Insurance Co. Of North America v. Martha Ellen Reichardt, Etc., Martha Ellen Reichardt v. Wesley J. Kinder

591 F.2d 499 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 12, 1979

Section 1985’s drafters clearly intended to protect groups other than oppressed southern blacks. … It is now well established that gender-based classifications may result in invidious discrimination. Craig v.

United States v. Rex G. Endicott, United States of America v. John Stuart Robertson

803 F.2d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 27, 1986

In its rebuttal argument, responding to its claim of an attack on Trudo’s credibility because he had received immunity, a prosecutor argued, “[h]e was in fact granted immunity. … The prosecutor continued, “Immunity is a very ordinary process * * * Mr. Trudo wasn’t grated [sic] immunity by some agent on the street at 10:00 in the morning. Agents don’t have authority to do that.

People of the State of California v. Kathryn Isabella Mesa, People of the State of California v. Shabbir A. Ebrahim, A/K/A Shabbir Azam

813 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 1987

Id. at 265 . 4 Although the orders at issue here clearly satisfy the second requirement, the first and third requirements are not met. … Where federal funds are at stake, federal jurisdiction is clearly appropriate.

Imperial Granite Company v. Pala Band Of Mission Indians

940 F.2d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 1, 1991

There is no allegation that closing the road to Imperial exceeded the officials' authority granted by the Band; quite the contrary, the Band clearly authorized the closure. … Nor can Imperial establish that it acquired an easement over the Band's trust lands by reason of necessity. See United States v. Clarke, 529 F.2d 984, 986 (9th Cir.1976).

United States v. Mark Lawrence Alter

482 F.2d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 23, 1973

for a connection, he “detected only a ‘hollow’ sound, as though the line were open” and after several more seconds, he “heard what sounded distinctly like a human cough”; (4) he and his asso *1025 ciate, Marvin Stender, “clearly … The witness does not have to plead and prove his entire case to establish standing and to trigger the Government’s responsibility to affirm or to deny.

Sethy v. Alameda Co. Water District

545 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 1976

THE WATER DISTRICT’S APPEAL (a) Municipal Immunity The Water District contends that municipal immunity, established for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Monroe v. … Section 1 of the 1866 Act imposed federal liability upon private entities. 7 The statute clearly is not limited to actions against “persons”.

Jennifer Power v. State of Arizona

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2024

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … was clearly established.

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams

798 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 1986

Such an action would clearly not be barred by section 1341. See, e.g., Moe, 425 U.S. at 474-75 , 96 S.Ct. at 1641-42 . … However, it is doubtful whether the Tribe qua sovereign would qualify as a "citizen of the United States or other person" eligible to bring an action under section 1983 for deprivation of its rights, privileges, or immunities

United States v. Anthony Melvin Azadian

436 F.2d 81 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 1971

Clearly, Azadian wanted to consummate the matter when Miss Daniel hoped to withdraw, and he wanted to use her to assist future prospects. … The defense does not so much establish innocence as grant immunity from prosecution for criminal acts concededly committed. Here Carbajal goes free because what was done to him was done by a Government agent.

United States v. Sarno

73 F.3d 1470 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 1995

Sarno and Knapp on the preparation of the June 28 submission, so testified (under a grant of immunity). … Knapp and Sarno on this scheme and both of whom testified under a grant of immunity. Mr.

Jackson v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

510 F. App'x 599 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 2013

“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 … An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: 1) the plaintiff shows that the government official violated a constitutional right; and 2) that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct

Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

754 F.2d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 1, 1985

exemption established in Parker v. … “Clearly Articulated and Affirmatively Expressed” State Policy Following Lafayette and Boulder, this circuit has developed a two part test for assessing the availability of municipal Parker v. Brown immunity.

Theophilos Deligiannis v. City of Anaheim

471 F. App'x 603 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2012

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Deligiannis’s Fourth Amendment and procedural due process claims on the basis of qualified immunity because, at the time of the incident, it was not clearly established … City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir. 2008) (officers entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident whether pre-towing notice must be given before a car with