Case law

Victoria Ann Lidie v. State of California

478 F.2d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 10, 1973

But where the original plaintiffs were never qualified to represent the class, a motion to intervene represents a back-door attempt to begin the action anew, and need not be granted. Washington v. … It is clear that the state’s sovereign immunity, if it exists, can be waived.

Earp v. Cullen

623 F.3d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 19, 2010

Monguio’s 2002 report clearly establishes that he had organic brain damage at the time of his trial in 1991, his 2 Earp argues that the district court abused its discretion when it struck Dr. Monguio’s testimony. … Monguio was qualified to testify as an expert and that the district court improperly excluded her testimony.

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7234, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,341 United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Lynn Dudden, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

65 F.3d 1461 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 1995

Findings on the issue of prejudice are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, keeping in mind the defendant's heavy burden. … The instruction also directed the jury to decide whether the government had established that Dudden's prosecution was based on evidence entirely independent from her immunized statements, citing Kastigar.

Yakutat, Inc. v. Gutierrez

407 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 2005

. 50 C.F.R. § 679.4 (establishing the permit system in the BSAI for groundfish fishing). … Id. at 350 (citing Alaska Factory Trawler, 831 F.2d at 1460). 60 Yakutat argues that the FMP amendment qualified two boats that have clearly abandoned the fishing industry, while it excludes the F/V Blue North, thereby demonstrating

Arizona Libertarian Party v. Katie Hobbs

925 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 2019

The Libertarian, Democratic, and Republican Parties are established statewide. 1 Before 2016, to qualify for the primary ballot, an established party candidate needed to submit signatures 2 exceeding a certain percentage … his primary, while a write-in established party candidate only qualifies for the general election ballot if he wins his primary with votes equaling the number of signatures needed to qualify for the primary ballot.

Paul Guidry v. John Durkin

834 F.2d 1465 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 22, 1987

If Durkin’s actions at sea met the prima facie requirements for tortious libel, then a case of admiralty jurisdiction has been established under maritime common law. … That the personnel decision was reduced to an alleged tortious writing does not vitiate its maritime flavor. 7 Accordingly, Guidry’s claim clearly sounds in admiralty, and would be cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (1).

United States v. Federal Resources Corp.

767 F.3d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2014

Although such immunity creates a palpable risk of disproportionate liability, that is not to say that the device is forbidden. … “[A] district court abuses its discretion ‘when it makes an error of law, when it rests its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed

Mirsad Hajro v. Uscis

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 23, 2015

“Congress clearly intended the FOIA to give any member of the public as much right to disclosure as one with a special interest in a particular document . . . .” U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. … Third, if Mayock cannot establish standing for a pattern or practice claim against USCIS delays upon remand, who can?

James Lundgren, Dba Pacific Construction Company v. Claude Freeman, Sydney B. Hayslip and Stewart Tuft, Co-Partners, Dba Freeman, Hayslip and Tuft, School District No. 5 v. James Lundgren, Dba Pacific Construction Company

307 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1962

We presume that this policy extends to private persons acting in a quasi-judicial capacity within jurisdiction established by private agreement. 44 Some of the cases cited go so far as to hold (or say) that the immunity extends … Like the issue of wrongful purpose, we feel that the issue as to the existence of quasi-arbitrators' qualified immunity is a question of fact.

Freddy Burton v. Infinity Capital Management

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2017

The proponent of a claim for absolute immunity “bears the burden of establishing that such immunity is justified.” Curry v. … To qualify for absolute immunity, the function performed must be a judicial act with “a sufficiently close nexus to the adjudicative process.” Id.

William Earl Warren III v. City of Carlsbad Brian Watson James Thompson Frank Mannen Raymond Patchett Stewart Gary Ann Jansen

58 F.3d 439 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 22, 1995

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie ease of race discrimination under Title VII by establishing that (1) he or she belongs to a racial minority; (2) he or she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer … The City claimed that it did not promote Warren because others were more qualified.

Khapabhai Dahyabhai Patel and Pramilaben Khapabhai Patel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

638 F.2d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 30, 1981

Patel attempted to establish his eligibility for adjustment of status by qualifying for the investor exemption. … Although Patel invested money and applied for the investor exemption well after Heitland was decided, we doubt that he could have clearly determined what he must do to qualify for the exemption.

Ramirez v. Kroonen

44 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 2002

There is ample evidence that, in the absence of the challenged educational requirement, he was well-qualified for the position, and demonstrably more qualified than the person actually hired. … Ramirez argues that this conclusion improperly provides a blanket immunity for all California employers from § 1981 liability. He is correct. In Judie v.

Dravon Ames v. City of Tempe

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 8, 2024

The district court correctly concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Anthony Beasley v. City of Keizer

525 F. App'x 549 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless a plaintiff demonstrates: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ … Ct. at 2083, Beasley cannot demonstrate the violation of a clearly established right. Thus, both the District Attorneys and the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Delta Savings Bank v. United States

265 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 2001

In Pareto, the result was not "absurd or impracticable" because the FDIC was qualified to decide, on behalf of the former stockholders, whether the bank should sue the directors for breaching the duty of loyalty and for misrepresenting … The prior decision should be followed unless: (1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3) substantially

Richard Fredericks v. Gary Wright George Burke City of Forest Grove and John Doe, a Fictitious Person

46 F.3d 1141 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 20, 1995

Qualified Immunity 13 Police officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a Sec. 1983 action if their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … In deciding whether officials are entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine (1) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and (2) whether, in light of that law, a reasonable official

Donald Leach v. T Drew

385 F. App'x 699 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 28, 2010

.*** Appellants Carey, Drew, Schroeder, and Haws (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal for the second time the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 744 (2002) (relying in part on Alabama Department of Corrections regulation to conclude that use of “hitching post” violated an inmate’s clearly established Eighth Amendment rights).

United States v. Jayde Evans

929 F.3d 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 9, 2019

Code § 69.51A.043 (2013) (establishing the defense). … The district court did not clearly err in finding that Evans and Davis were not “qualifying patients.” See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2012).

Jaycee Dugard v. United States

835 F.3d 915 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2016

Singer Co., 706 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 1983) (discussing the duty to warn under California law and concluding that it “clearly” requires a “foreseeable and specifically identifiable” victim); Rice v. Ctr. … “Instead, [Johnson and Tarasoff] stand for the principle that a special relationship, such as that between the state and a person in its custody, establishes a duty to use 24 DUGARD V.