Case law

Moses v. Payne

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 30, 2009

PAYNE 1113 denied Moses his clearly established constitutional right to present a defense. … Accordingly, I conclude that the state court decision was not “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court prece- dent.

Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. United States

699 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 2012

Whether the government’s erroneous interpretation of § 6103 was in good faith turns on whether the government violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … This interpretation of § 6103(k)(4) would clearly eviscerate the basic purpose of § 6103.

Blufford Hayes, Jr. v. Jill Brown, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin

399 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 7, 2005

The prohibition on the use of false evidence by the State at trial is clearly a procedural rule; it affects the operation of the criminal trial process, but does not affect the scope of a substantive criminal statute. 66 … The Supreme Court noted in Kyles that, in Agurs , the Court had expressly considered and rejected the harmless error standard established in Kotteakos v.

Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions

353 F.3d 792 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2003

It is well-established that use of a product feature or trade dress that has become functional will qualify as one form of fair use. *810 Qualitex Co. v. … The record does not clearly establish whether "Joe Mattel” ever existed.

Arconic, Inc. v. Apc Investment Co.

969 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2020

In essence, the settlement allowed these parties to walk away from the site effectively immune from further pursuit. The court approved that settlement in 2007. … They point out that “with respect to” is broad qualifying language, and that the limitations provision mentions costs alone—not obligations, liabilities, or responsibilities.

Schowengerdt v. General Dynamics Corp.

823 F.2d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 1987

Under Howerton , if the second search was as alleged, Kessel’s joint participation would clearly be "state action.” … That searches were conducted on behalf of the government ”indicate[s] the assumption of a police activity which is clearly a public function.” Dobyns v.

Todd Taylor v. Bill Honig, Superintendent of Education, and Thomas Uram Bernard Rappaport Gary Ruelas William G. Loomis

977 F.2d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1992

Thus, the Taylors have alleged conduct that violated the clearly established right to a free public education, 1 and the Mental Health defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow. … Therefore, the Taylors have failed to allege conduct that violates clearly established rights under the Due Process Clause, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. El Dorado County

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2013

The question is whether that difference establishes a proper distinction. We conclude that it does not. … This kind of harm does not qualify.  UNITED STATES V .

Michael D. Huson v. The City of Castle Rock Gilbert R. Vaughn, in His Official Capacity and Individually

9 F.3d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 29, 1993

. § 1983 because his clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when Vaughn arrested Huson for theft. … The first part, whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established, is not disputed by the parties 3 The court gave the following instruction to the jury, which was stipulated to by the parties, on the qualified

United States v. Santiago Pena-Espinoza

47 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 1995

[may be] sufficient to establish what was said.”) (emphasis added). Moreover, we have noted the importance of reminding the jurors of the primacy of the tapes, United States v. … The admission of the agents’ testimony clearly prejudiced the defendant.

United States v. Adalberto Rubio-Topete

999 F.2d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 1993

Through this testimony he hoped to establish that Soto knew the operation in depth and that Soto was not acquainted with Rubio-Topete. … It. is uncontested that Soto received no grant of immunity from the government.

David A. Norton v. Gary A. Napper

42 F.3d 1401 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 14, 1994

The Ninth Circuit applies a two-part test to qualified immunity determinations: "1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? … The difficulty of such an inquiry in the context of qualified immunity is immediately apparent: Norton must show that his rights were "clearly established" under a First Amendment standard that was long ago acknowledged to

George Aydelotte v. Town of Skykomish

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 24, 2018

retaliation for his speech was clearly established. … Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[C]laims for injunctive and declaratory relief are unaffected by qualified immunity.”). 3.

Luvumbu v. Keisler

249 F. App'x 691 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 2, 2007

The BIA determined that the IJ’s adverse credibility findings were not clearly erroneous. … Therefore, the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s determination that Luvumbu did not qualify for withholding of removal.

United States v. Charles Lynch

903 F.3d 1061 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 2018

The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence, because it clearly had the power to decline to allow otherwise-problematic evidence on an already-established and uncontested matter. … The district court held, however, that “being such an organizer/leader over another participant simply qualifies a defendant for an adjustment; it does not require it.”

Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Beck Engineering & Surveying Co.

746 F.2d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 1, 1984

Since ninety percent of his surveying work was construction-related, his construction work was likewise sufficiently substantial to qualify these agreements under Section 8(f). … Clearly, under the terms of the short form agreement, the letter of January 30, 1981 would have been a nullity, since it was not given during the thirty day period provided in the agreement.

Kamla Prasad Meena Kumari Prasad Catherine Sandhya Prasad Micky Sudesh Prasad Ricky Sumit Prasad v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

47 F.3d 336 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 1995

I dissent because Prasad established past persecution on account of his political beliefs. He therefore qualifies as a refugee eligible for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A). … The record shows that Prasad was clearly “harm[ed]” and made to “suffer[]” because of his political beliefs.

Lonberg v. City of Riverside

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 26, 2009

CITY OF RIVERSIDE 8075 enforceable through a private right of action, see id. at 280 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7, which “expressly abrogated States’ sovereign immunity against suits brought in federal court to … [6] The plain language of § 202 prohibits public entities from discriminating against qualified disabled individuals in its administration of services and programs.

United States v. Robert Vederoff

914 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 2019

VEDEROFF 13 law clearly covers a broader range of conduct than generic aggravated assault. … VEDEROFF under this subdivision (1)(b) in which the defendant was not the only participant in the underlying crime, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, it

Ralph Kakumi Hara v. United States

505 F.2d 495 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 18, 1975

The government’s proof to establish the charges contained in Count I consists solely of appellant’s original Selective Service file which was produced by Mrs. … The record does not affirmatively establish Form 261 as the source of the entry in appellant’s file.