Case law

VoiceStream Wireless Corp. v. Federal Insurance

112 F. App'x 553 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 14, 2004

Second, the policies themselves do not define the term “damages.” 5 To the extent that seeking damages, in part, in the form of a headset *557 neither clearly falls within a policy provision, nor is clearly excluded by the … Travelers Indemnity Co., 106 Wash.2d 901 , 726 P.2d 439 (1986) (en banc) for the proposition that simply alleging harm to human cells is insufficient to establish bodily injury.

Murray Hooper v. David Shinn

985 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 8, 2021

of clearly established federal law.” … Thus, even if Sanders was clearly established, it was not the applicable clearly established law governing Hooper’s due process claim.

H.B. v. City of Torrance

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 23, 2019

Defendants-Appellants City of Torrance police officers Jason Sena, Dusty Garver, and Scott Nakayama appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) if that right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Lal v.

United States v. Kenneth E. Ford

989 F.2d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 30, 1993

I Ford, an American citizen, established a network of Canadian and American companies (the Companies). … Invested capital was escrowed in a qualified Canadian bank that would disburse the cash to a research company upon proof of qualified research expenditures.

William Fletcher v. Marquardt

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 15, 2019

Marquardt argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not use excessive force and the law was not clearly established that his force was unlawful under the circumstances. … The district court did not err in denying Marquardt’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. 3

Garry S. Gonsalves v. Esther Gallegos

993 F.2d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 1993

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Here there is no dispute that the law was clearly established: A public employee may not be terminated for engaging in constitutionally protected conduct like the speech involved in this case. Pickering v.

Darren Bottinelli v. Josias Salazar

929 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 15, 2019

It held that the Act’s text clearly links the good time credit amendment’s effective date to the creation of “the risk and needs assessment system.” … As in paragraph 102(b)(2), the subject of paragraph 102(b)(3) – “[t]he amendments made by this subsection” – refers to more than a single amendment and contains no qualifier to limit its application to only the addition

Mukhtar v. California State University, Hayward

319 F.3d 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 12, 2003

Wellman's testimony, that would tend to establish discrimination on the part of CSUH. Six CSUH professors testified that they believed Elsayed was qualified for a tenure appointment, and Dr. … Here, the facts regarding the district court's decision-making process clearly warranted such a resolution.

Christopher Watson v. City of Bonney Lake

506 F. App'x 555 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 2013

The clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis is intended to recognize that “government officials . . . generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

United States v. Beltran-Garcia

179 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 11, 1999

Ill at 1-2. 1 Thus, the judge clearly instructed the jury that the facts were for them to decide. See United States v. … He simply told them that they could infer that the quantity of drugs was enough to establish intent.

In the Matter of Amex-Protein Development Corporation, Bankrupt. M. Nolden, Trustee of Estate of Bankrupt v. Plant Reclamation

504 F.2d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 1974

The court held that the financing statement before it qualified as a security agreement. … “Accordingly, the promissory note herein qualifies as a security agreement which by its terms ‘creates or provides for’ a security interest. II.

Mr. And Mrs. Ardmore Canton v. Spokane School District 81, a Public Corporation

498 F.2d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 13, 1974

It is well established that state judicial remedies need not be exhausted or invoked to perfect a federal cause of action under the Civil Rights Act, § 1983. … Other fees complained of, however, would clearly not be so regarded, according to the state law as set forth by the Attorney General.

United States v. Donnie Walton

881 F.3d 768 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2018

Rather, established Supreme Court precedent requires that we employ a so-called “categorical” approach, looking “only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense” to determine whether the state … The Court of Criminal Appeals held this “clearly supported a conviction” of third-degree robbery. Id. at 933.

Ramon Ruiz and Anita Ruiz v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior

462 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 31, 1972

Professor Davis notes that even long-standing regulations are not immune to scrutiny by the courts. … I have never been quite store who qualifies. [Emphasis Added.] I have heard one-sixth and one-eighth and one-thirty-second and all kinds. What rule do you use to determine who is under your jurisdiction?

United States v. Parker

651 F.3d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2011

important exception: a panel may disagree with the circuit precedent when intervening Supreme Court decisions have undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly … PARKER 11315 applies during an open house, as “a person may not claim immunity from [the bar letter’s] prohibition on entry merely because the military has temporarily opened a military facility to the public

Daniel Flores v. William Barr

930 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 2019

Flores challenges the BIA’s conclusion that his conviction under California Penal Code § 288(a) qualifies as a conviction for “sexual abuse of a minor.” … To overcome this precedent, Flores would need to identify “intervening higher authority” that is “clearly irreconcilable” with it. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). He has not done so.

United States v. Garcia

497 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2007

However, Black’s testimony clearly indicates that these negotiations occurred sometime during or after August 2003. … This proposition is correct only in the context of establishing vicarious liability for acts establishing the crime of conspiracy itself rather than vicarious liability for other substantive offenses committed in the course

Kessele Livingston v. Lauri Esslinger

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 2018

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … The district court erred in rejecting the caseworkers’ claim for qualified immunity, because Livingston has not alleged the violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established.1 1 We conclude

Mario Sandoval-Gomez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 22, 2014

“The language clearly reflects a concern over substantive offenses rather than any concern about the jurisdiction in which they are prosecuted.” Id. … indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity . . . to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment

Salomon Ledezma-Cosino v. Jefferson Sessions

857 F.3d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 2017

DISCUSSION To qualify for cancellation of removal, Petitioner had the burden of establishing that he: (A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding … Because Petitioner has engaged in conduct that is clearly covered, he “cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.” Holder v.