Case law

Bateson v. Geisse

857 F.2d 1300 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 20, 1988

Thus, whether the city council members are immune "turns on the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law, not on their subjective good faith." Lowe v. … Neither absolute or qualified immunity protects the appellants from suit.

Tortu v. Lvmpd

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2009

The determination of qualified immunity at step two is strictly a legal question of whether, even though the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a constitutional violation, that constitutional right was not clearly established … The second question under Saucier is whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 202.

Joseph Frederick v. Deborah Morse Juneau School Board

439 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 2006

We next must determine whether the violated right was clearly established. … immunity test, Frederick’s right was clearly established.

Clarence Jones v. Max Williams

791 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 26, 2015

The district court held that Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity from this claim. We disagree. … ’ and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Kruse ex rel. Kanoa v. Hawai'i

68 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 12, 1995

When a public official asserts qualified immunity from liability in a § 1983 action, we must determine whether (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established and (2) whether under that law, an official … Clearly Established Right While the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a “particularized” sense, “this is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity

PAULETTE SMITH V. EDWARD AGDEPPA

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 30, 2022

court’s decision denying qualified immunity, which was clearly wrong). … But this standard is obviously far, far too general to create clearly established law for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity.

Afshin Bahrampour v. R.O. Lampert, Superintendent Debbie Holland Teresa Hicks Kathy Stevens

356 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 13, 2004

If so, the next step is to analyze whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights asserted were not clearly established at the time. Id. … Because the right of inmates to receive commercial bulk mail was not clearly established at the time of the violation, however, the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

Klapper v. City of Los Angeles

193 F. App'x 661 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 19, 2006

Nevertheless, the district court also grounded its decision on qualified immunity grounds; “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity … The rule of Winsor , however, is clearly established, and we cannot decide whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity before resolution of the factual issue above.

Bishope Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo

275 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 4, 2002

Finally, we find that neither the District Attorney nor the Sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by executing a warrant outside of their jurisdiction. … On review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Pelletier v.

Norse v. City of Santa Cruz

118 F. App'x 177 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2004

Immunity attaches if the official allegedly violated a right that was not clearly established, or if a reasonable official would have thought the defendant’s actions were constitutional. Trevino v. … Qualified immunity’s expansive contours protect “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,” Malley v.

Trevino v. Gates

99 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 1, 1996

. § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the “right” they allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable [official] would have thought that the defendants’ … Under the first part of the qualified immunity test, Trevino must demonstrate that the policy violated clearly established law.

Jose Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co.

768 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 2014

Yet the Court did not establish any new theory, and although the Filarsky discussion does include a broad reading of the qualified immunity doctrine, id. at 1667–68, that doctrine is not implicated by this case. … The decision is applicable only in the context of § 1983 qualified immunity from personal tort liability. See, e.g., ibid.

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Criminal Courts Bar Association James McNally James Johnson Bey v. James T. Butts, City of Santa Monica Chief of Police the City of Santa Monica Ray H. Cooper Shane Talbot, and Willie L. Williams, Chief of Police City of Los Angeles Raymond Bennett Michael Crosby, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, James McNally James Johnson Bey v. James T. Butts, City of Santa Monica Chief of Police the City of Santa Monica Ray H. Cooper Shane Talbot City of Los Angeles v. Raymond Bennett Michael Crosby

195 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 8, 2000

The Right is Clearly Established 95 To be "clearly established" for the purpose of overcoming qualified immunity, "[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what … It is not enough for the court simply to say that such interrogation tactics may be found to be coercive; for qualified immunity to be overcome, the law to that effect must be clearly established.

Gordon v. Newsom

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 24, 2026

The district court properly dismissed Gordon’s claims for damages because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Cuevas v. … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Shiraki v. Cannella

83 F. App'x 896 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 2003

We are bound by Caldwell’s pre- Saucier holding, which resolves the question of whether Cannella is entitled to qualified immunity on this issue. … Because we find that Cannella is entitled to qualified immunity, we do not decide that constitutional question here. For the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.

Art Tobias v. Daniel East

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2020

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal . . . constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Because controlling precedent does not establish “beyond debate” that the officers’ conduct here shocks the conscience, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Duffy v. Riveland

98 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 1996

The Supreme Court has established a three-part test for Article III standing. … immunity.

Actkinson v. Vargo

284 F. App'x 469 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 2008

Vargo was entitled to qualified immunity for all claims arising after March 2002 because he did not violate Actkinson’s clearly established constitutional rights; and (3) Actkinson’s contention that Dr. … Vargo was entitled to qualified immunity.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5270, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8559 Jay Ram v. Winona Rubin, in Her Capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services, State of Hawai'i, and William Silva, Jay Ram v. Winona Rubin, in Her Capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services County of Hawaii, a Municipal Corporation William Silva Elsie Kamahele, John Does 1-10 Jane Does 1-10 Doe Corporations 1-10 Doe Partnership 1-10 Doe Joint Ventures 1-10 and Doe Governmental Entities 1-10

118 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 1997

suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … When an official asserts qualified immunity, we apply a two-part analysis: "1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established?

Howard L. Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach Ernest Klevesahl, Jr. Hodgen Crossett Does, 1-10, Inclusive, and Robert Schreiber, Howard L. Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach Ernest Klevesahl, Jr., and Robert Schreiber Hodgen Crossett

341 F.3d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the "clearly established" inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.