Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.02s
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 5, 2019
Qualified Immunity 14 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability under 15 § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established … 7 The Parties’ Positions 8 Defendant Lynch argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not 9 clearly established in 2008 that defendant Lynch’s
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 3, 2026
Qualified immunity 7 applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 8 rights of which a reasonable person would have known. District of Columbia v. … Diaz, 76 F.4th 918, 925 19 (9th Cir. 2023) (dismissal for qualified immunity is not appropriate at the motion to dismiss stage 20 unless the complaint itself demonstrates that qualified immunity applies). 21 C.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2020
The Court can 21 therefore grant qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss 22 stage, if it determines, based on the Complaint, that qualified 23 immunity is proper. O’Brien v. … Rather, the qualified immunity inquiry rests on whether 16 it was clearly established that it was unlawful for Officer 17 Hachler to point his gun at Weaver under these circumstances. 18
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2023
Qualified Immunity 26 i. … Legal Standard 27 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 28 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 2019
needs was clearly 7 established. … Qualified Immunity 12 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for 13 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknown779 F. Supp. 1546 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 23, 1991
Where the defendant is the United States, the existence of jurisdiction depends upon its waiver, if any, of sovereign immunity: “It long has been established that the United States, as sovereign, ‘is immune from suit save … Thus, plaintiff has clearly prevailed on a substantial part of his claim.
Cited 12 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 14, 2022
Qualified Immunity 24 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 25 conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ordinarily, once the court 17 concludes that a right was clearly established, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity 18 because a reasonably competent public official is charged with knowing the law governing
Cited 0 timesUnknown384 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 11, 1974
Clearly, § 2409a (c) requires plaintiffs to set forth the interest claimed by the United States and does not require the alternative as plaintiffs suggest. … If the United States wished to assert that the statute of limitations had run, it would then have the burden of establishing this fact.” Letter, September 20, 1972, from Mr.
Cited 7 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 13, 2023
Qualified Immunity 21 i. … Legal Standard 22 “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 23 violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 28, 2025
It also is clearly established that when prison staff conspire to label a 13 prisoner a snitch in retaliation for the prisoner’s speech, they violate the First Amendment. See 14 id. at 1138. … court also declines to grant defendants qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation. 18 Defendants may renew their motion for qualified immunity at trial. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 27, 2023
State officials are 9 entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 suit unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or 10 constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the … force, the officers would be entitled to judgment in 17 their favor on qualified immunity grounds if the right was not clearly established at the time of the 18
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 16, 2020
Only the second part of the qualified immunity test remains: whether that rule 10 was clearly established at the time. 11 When, as here, officers “act[] in reliance on a duly-enacted … Id. at 830 (emphasis in original). 3 Because the right at issue here was clearly established at the relevant time, defendant is 4 not entitled to qualified immunity. 5 IV
Cited 0 timesUnknownChiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.
179 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 10, 2001
Thus, this court will draw from established attorney-client case law from the Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit, other circuit, and district court decisions in patent cases. … The attached December 1998 opinion regarding the ’894 patent clearly serves as a basis, in part, for the September 2000 opinion — “This analysis [’561 patent] is provided as an addendum to our previous analysis [’894 patent
Cited 16 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 21, 2025
Qualified Immunity 7 “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s 8 conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” 9 Pearson v. … rights at issue here were not “clearly established” under 17 the applicable standard.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 25, 2025
Qualified Immunity 20 1. … Discussion 10 Defendants move for qualified immunity on the grounds that the complaint fails to 11 establish a First Amendment violation and argues that there “is no clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownWilliams v. County of Sacramento
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 12, 2024
Qualified Immunity (Claim Two) 14 City Defendants argue in the alternative that they are entitled to qualified immunity for 15 Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful detention and arrest claims because … The second step of 19 the qualified immunity analysis “requires two separate determinations: (1) whether the law 20 governing the conduct at issue was clearly established and (2) whether the facts as alleged could 21
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 6, 2019
“The threshold inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if 22 true, establish a constitutional violation.” Wilkins v. … Defendants are not 15 entitled to qualified immunity at this time. 16 B.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 13, 2021
The legal principles applicable to plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim set out 21 by the magistrate judge and adopted in full by this order are clearly established law for purposes 22 of a qualified immunity analysis. … Defendant Curry sought qualified 23 immunity on the basis of an assertion that the facts were undisputed.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSTATE OF CAL. BY & THROUGH YOUNGER v. Blumenthal
457 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 3, 1978
Nor is there any basis for limiting the applicability of Section 6058(a) to employers maintaining qualified plans. … That part describes nonqualified as well as qualified plans. The scope of ERISA itself is, of course, not limited to qualified plans its remedial provisions are intended to reach deferred compensation plans generally.
Cited 2 timesPublishedMedrano v. Kern County Sheriff's Officer
921 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 1, 2013
Wrongful Death The County contends the Complaint fails to state a wrongful death cause of action because “[t]he required factual allegations must be such as to reveal the inapplicability of immunities, qualified *1017 and … (b) Whether or not qualified under subdivision (a), if they were dependent on the decedent, the putative spouse, children of the putative spouse, stepchildren, or parents.
Cited 20 timesPublished
Ask Donna