Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.42s
746 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 29, 2014
light of clearly established law and the information [that they] possessed.” … The court held that the professor’s First Amendment rights were clearly established in the Fourth Circuit, and it denied qualified immunity.
Cited 52 timesPublished286 F. App'x 395 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 2008
We review the denial of qualified immunity de novo. See Lee v. … If we determine that a constitutional violation has occurred, we must then determine whether Dague’s rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. In Tennessee v.
Cited 1 timesPublished223 F.3d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 15, 2000
immunity “because no clearly established law proscribed his actions, and he could have reasonably believed his conduct was lawful.” … The test for qualified immunity is: (1) identification of the specific right being violated; (2) determination of whether the right was so clearly established as to alert a reasonable officer to its constitutional parameters
Cited 86 timesPublished57 F. App'x 296 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 7, 2003
We conclude that the district court’s ruling satisfies the requirements set forth in the two-part qualified immunity test established by Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … The Estate has also established the second prong of the Saucier test - that the Eighth Amendment right at stake was clearly established. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.
Cited 0 timesPublished925 F.2d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 1, 1991
Because the facts establish that Banzon’s action did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” he has qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Rather, the case turns on a purely legal question: whether Banzon violated clearly established constitutional protections. Accordingly, we exercise jurisdiction over Banzon’s appeal.
Cited 52 timesPublished26 F. App'x 634 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 27, 2001
I do not believe that any question of material fact remains as to whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their unlawful detention of the appellants; clearly they are not. … Thus, for the purpose of the first prong of the qualified immunity test set forth in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), a violation has been established.
Cited 0 timesPublishedJoseph Padgett v. Brian Loventhal
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 14, 2009
Curtis Wright appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity in this § 1983 action. … at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedElaine Brittain v. William Hansen Rebecca Scott County of San Bernardino, and Brian Campbell, C0191
451 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 22, 2006
Qualified immunity shields government officials “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 … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .
Cited 175 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 2006
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Appellants assert Murray and Elique (the “Supervisors”) violated their clearly established constitutional rights by initi- ating an investigation without giving Appellants proper notice under Nev. … ELIQUE that such a right was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesPublished37 F.3d 1505 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 28, 1994
We hold that the district court did not err in granting Thrash qualified immunity, because a reasonable officer could have believed this entry into Imperiale's house to be lawful in light of clearly established law as of … Thrash's defense of qualified immunity was not litigated in the state court suppression hearing. 5 Qualified immunity analysis begins with the Supreme Court's opinion in Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMontgomery v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
671 F. App'x 996 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 22, 2016
Dismissal of Montgomery’s excessive force claim was proper because it would not have been clear to every reasonable officer that the conduct violated a clearly established right. See Bryan v. … MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (police officer entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedYouth 71five Ministries v. Williams
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 26, 2025
But because 71Five does not allege a violation of any “clearly established” right, qualified immunity bars its claims for damages. I. 71Five challenges the Division’s religious non- discrimination Rule. … Because 71Five does not allege any violation of a clearly established right, we also hold that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and affirm the dismissal of 71Five’s claims for damages.
Cited 0 timesPublished558 F.3d 1106 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2009
The court denied Officer Walton qualified immunity because, in its view, insufficient evidence existed “to establish a fair probability that any contraband or evidence of a crime might be found at [Sun Min and Kim’s] residence … Qualified immunity protects government officials 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
Cited 3 timesPublishedJoseph Padgett v. Brian Loventhal
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2009
LOVENTHAL trict court’s denial of qualified immunity. See Mitchell v. For- syth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). … at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”
Cited 0 timesPublished76 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 8, 1996
Fronterotta, contends that the court erred in failing to grant him qualified immunity and in giving improper instructions to the jury. … The court then denied qualified immunity to Fronterotta and Wright.
Cited 137 timesPublishedDemont R.D. Conner v. Theodore Sakai
15 F.3d 1463 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 2, 1994
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the issue is whether the right infringed was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s complained-of action, and whether a reasonable official could have believed that his … The right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing has been clearly established since Wolff v. McDonnell was decided in 1974.
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio, 693 F.3d 896 (2012)Cited 55 timesPublished270 F. App'x 518 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2008
If we find that the officer violated a constitutional right, we next consider whether that right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. … established in 1996.
Cited 9 timesPublishedShames v. California Travel & Tourism Commission
607 F.3d 611 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 8, 2010
The Court established a two-pronged test to determine when state involvement in anticompetitive conduct can render a party eligible for immunity: (1) the challenged restraint must be “one clearly articulated and affirmatively … We held that the companies’ actions did not qualify for state action immunity because the OPUC “did not specifically and clearly authorize[ ] by the relevant statutory process” their anticompetitive conduct.
Cited 2 timesPublishedSin v. Crystal Park Hotel Casino
77 F. App'x 433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 8, 2003
We must now inquire whether the constitutional right at issue is “clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202. Here, the district court reasoned: “Specific intent is an element of California Penal Code § 422. … The jury decided otherwise, and in so doing removed the underpinning for a challenge to the summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. AFFIRMED.
Cited 3 timesPublished108 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 1997
If not, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … (finding no qualified immunity where cases "clearly" set out the premises of a particular clearly established right). 16 However, government officials are "not charged with predicting the future course of constitutional law
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna