Case law

Daniel Young v. Travis Hauri

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2021

Second, Defendants’ alleged search violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law. … Thus, with Fourth Amendment searches, “the real question in determining whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is whether it was clearly established, at the time of the search, that such a search does not

Cabrera v. Martin

973 F.2d 735 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 1992

The DOL contends that the Secretary of Labor and the other federal defendants are immune from suit because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity and is not a “person” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. … Section 702 now provides a broad waiver of immunity for injunctive actions filed against the federal government.

John Marshall v. Grant Sawyer, as Governor of the State of Nevada

301 F.2d 639 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 7, 1962

The letter calls attention to the booklet and requests “cooperation” in excluding the identified individuals from their establishments. … plaintiff to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States.

In Re Lorillard Tobacco Company

370 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 2004

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 Before 1984, peddlers of counterfeit merchandise were nearly immune to the then-conventional civil remedies available to victims of trademark infringement; indeed,”[t]he pirate ... who … were contained within the three cartons acquired from the Defendant’s establishment.

Trudi Lytle v. P. Kay Carl Brian Cram, and Clark County School District, Trudi Lytle v. P. Kay Carl Brian Cram, and Clark County School District, Trudi Lytle v. P. Kay Carl Clark County School District Brian Cram

382 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 1, 2004

The court further granted summary judgment to Cram and Carl as individuals based on qualified immunity, but denied summary judgment to the remaining individual defendants and the District. … In an earlier appeal, we held that the remaining individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, but allowed proceedings against the District to continue. Lytle v.

Kelly L. Martinez v. County of San Diego Elizabeth Foster

962 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 1992

If the right was not clearly established at the relevant time, we extend qualified immunity. … Since no such right was clearly established when Mrs.

Ambrose Gill v. Robert J. Ayers, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

342 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2003

There can be no doubt that Supreme Court precedent has clearly established that due process, including the right to be heard, applies to recidivist proceedings. … We next consider whether this constitutional error was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

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).

Diane M. Hendricks Kenneth A. Hendricks v. Bank of America, N.A., and Mutual Indemnity (Bermuda), Ltd., a Bermuda Corporation

408 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 24, 2005

We must affirm the injunction “unless the district court (1) abused its discretion or (2) based its discretion on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Satava v. … The district court concluded that the Hendricks established a sufficient probability of success on the merits, because they established a prima facie case of fraud, which Mutual did not challenge in its opposition to the

Susan Dyer Reynolds v. Dean E. Preston

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 3, 2024

that (2) was clearly established at the time of the violation.’” … Absent clearly established law, Preston is entitled to qualified immunity. See Polanco, 76 F.4th at 925. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the case.

Levone Harris v. Km Industrial, Inc.

980 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 13, 2020

B In reviewing the district court’s remand order, I begin by first clearly identifying the specific grounds on which that order was based. … Accordingly, I conclude that the sole reason given by the district court for remanding this case was clearly erroneous. Rea, 742 F.3d at 1239.

Ronald T. Dreisbach, Individually and Dba Dreisbach Enterprises, Inc. v. John Murphy

658 F.2d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 8, 1981

That arrangement is therefore authorized by those Agreements and is clearly lawful. It is not merely "arguably lawful", as was the conduct in Carnation Co. v. … Their alleged agreement confers monopoly status and antitrust immunity upon Murphy one not otherwise immune, not party to the approved agreements, and not subject to Commission regulation.

Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Reno

134 F.3d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 30, 1997

Clearly, someone who was discouraged from filling out an application or whose request for an application was denied would not fall within the purview of § 377. … A broader interpretation of § 377 would contravene Congress’s clearly expressed intention to “put an end to [this] litigation.”

Bautista Castillo-Felix v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

601 F.2d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 1979

Had Congress intended that result, it would have said so more clearly. … The Lok court found support for its conclusion in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s apparent rejection of language which would have clearly required admission for permanent residence before establishment of lawful domicile

Eugene Mauwee v. Bill Donat

407 F. App'x 105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 22, 2010

Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818 (2009) (courts may grant qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established without first considering whether a constitutional violation occurred). … Mauwee had no clearly established right that other inmates be proscribed from using the sweat lodge. See Navajo Nation v. U.S.

Victor Menotti Thomas Sellman Todd Stedl Doug Skove v. City of Seattle Paul Schell, Former Mayor of the City of Seattle Norman Stamper, Former Chief of Police of the City of Seattle Sharon Stevens, a Seattle Police Detective Ronald Smith, a Seattle Police Officer, Kenneth Hankin Jennifer Hudziec Stephanie Lane Denise Cooper Nicole Pearson on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. City of Seattle Paul Schell, Former Mayor of the City of Seattle Norman Stamper, Former Chief of Police of the City of Seattle

409 F.3d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 2, 2005

of Skove's sign violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures. 119 We proceed to the second step of qualified immunity analysis, under which we must determine whether the right was clearly established … We have held: 120 Whether a right is "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity is an inquiry that must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hughes A. BAGLEY, Defendant-Appellant

641 F.2d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 13, 1981

Henry, supra, has removed all doubt and clearly requires reversal. … been granted immunity.

Harris v. City of Pittsburg

928 F.2d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 18, 1991

The Supreme Court has held that government officials enjoy qualified immunity from section 1983 liability for actions performed in the course of their official duties. See, e.g., Harlow v. … To survive a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege a violation of clearly established law, and there must exist a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendant committed

Phyllis Smith v. North Star Charter School

593 F. App'x 743 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2015

The remaining defendants claim a qualified immunity defense. The district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is reviewed de novo. Ellins v. … Qualified immunity protects an official who “reasonably but mistakenly believed that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.” Hunt v.

Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

657 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 2011

Defendant has not met its heavy burden of establishing mootness. 2 This is not to say that Plaintiff necessarily qualifies for IFP status. … [6] “Equally clearly, a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not the same as a dismissal for failure to state a claim: in 17452 MOORE v.