Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.92s
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 12, 2021
(Id. at 76.) 20 Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because his 21 constitutional rights were clearly established at the … Legal Standards 20 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 21 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 7, 2023
Qualified Immunity 22 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 23 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ninth Circuit precedent is 9 sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity). A case “directly on 10 point” is not required.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 21, 2024
Defendant is also entitled to qualified immunity 1 because he did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and Plaintiff has no clearly established 2 right to choose particular medical procedures. … Qualified Immunity 5 Defendant also asserts that the Court should grant summary judgment on the basis of 6 qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMollica v. County of Sacramento
District Court, E.D. California · May 16, 2023
Qualified Immunity 22 Alternatively, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Specifically, 7 defendants argue the first question of the specific intent inquiry under the Bane Act is akin to the 8 “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 12–13.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBrave and Free Santa Cruz v. Aragon
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 27, 2025
Cal.); (2) defendant CDE and all successors to notify, within 15 days, local education 13 authorities that California children who qualify for IEPs under the Act must be educated without 14 regard to their immunization … have qualified for 19 IEPs that (a) those children must be educated without regard to immunization status, and (b) any 20 proposed changes to IEP services based on immunization status must be preceded by prior written
Cited 0 timesUnknownDelamater v. Anytime Fitness, Inc.
722 F. Supp. 2d 1168 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 28, 2010
The converted organization retains all of the property, debts, liabilities, obligations, rights, privileges and immunities of the converting organization. Minn.Stat. § 302A.691(2)(b). … Anytime Fitness Inc. was qualified to conduct business as of December 7, 2009. See Chris A. Ingvalson Declaration Exhibit B. Anytime Fitness LLC was qualified to conduct business as of January 15, *1177 2010.
Cited 8 timesPublishedFriant Water Authority v. Jewell
23 F. Supp. 3d 1130 · District Court, E.D. California · May 27, 2014
Orff clearly held that 42 U.S.C. § 390uu does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity to be “sued alone” in a contract dispute: Section 390uu grants consent “to join the United States as a necessary party defendant … waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Cited 10 timesPublished715 F. Supp. 2d 1012 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2010
Interrogatory No. 4 is clearly related to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, this objection lacks merit, and it is overruled. B. … Hoshino is a high-ranking government official subject to limited immunity from depositions. (Joint Statement at 117). Respondent also contends that Mr.
Cited 55 timesPublishedHampton v. San Joaquin County Sheriffs Department
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 8, 2020
Qualified Immunity as to Defendant Head 2 Defendant Head next claims that despite any potential liability for excessive force 3 under the First Cause of Action, he should be entitled to qualified … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987)), the 11 doctrine confers immunity when “officers’ actions does not amount to a constitutional 12 violation, the violation was not clearly established, or their actions reflected a
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 20, 2019
In 13 addition to qualified immunity for appeals review defendants and floor officer defendants, they 14 argue: (1) the high-level supervisory defendants are protected by qualified immunity; (2) 15 plaintiff’s claims … immunity issue presented by the Rico defendants in their appeal is whether 19 these appeals review and floor officer defendants should have reasonably understood that their 20 conduct violated plaintiff’s clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 3, 2023
“[G]overnment officials performing 3 discretionary functions are generally granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability 4 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Once a defendant has raised qualified immunity as a defense to a claim, a 9 plaintiff must show “(1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at 10 the time of the alleged misconduct
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 11, 2022
Kirsch Entitled to Qualified Immunity? 16 Dr. … immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 22 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCherrish Castaneda v. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 28, 2025
A test that only detects the RNA of a temporary virus, one that does not permanently 14 alter human genes, does not alone qualify as a genetic test. … AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 4 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint shall be clearly 5 labeled as the Second Amended Complaint.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2025
Qualified Immunity 19 In the alternative, Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity in this case. 20 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity … The plaintiff bears the burden 8 | of establishing that the right alleged was clearly established. Moran v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 15, 2023
Qualified Immunity 19 Even if the Plaintiffs could establish that Deputy Spencer did not have probable 20 cause, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. … “[T]he doctrine of 21 qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar 22 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 23 of which
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 23, 2026
He contends that these defendants who caused 27 him “to be unconstitutionally committed are not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity from 28 liability for damages” and that they “are not shielded from damages liability … “Few doctrines were more solidly established at 27 common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within 28
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 25, 2024
a disputed issue of 3 material fact precluding the granting of summary judgment as to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 4 claim on the merits or on qualified immunity grounds. … In addition, defendant suggests that the magistrate judge’s asserted 12 failure to adequately consider such evidence also somehow called into question the denial of 13 summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 18, 2020
“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless 7 their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 8 person would have known.’” … a statutory or constitutional right; 12 and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2020
However, even if the defendant violated a clearly established right, the 9 government official is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she made a reasonable mistake as to 10 what the law requires. … Nonetheless, assuming qualified 23 immunity were applicable, the Court concludes that Officer Foster is entitled to qualified 24 immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMcClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Cheney
763 F. Supp. 431 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 31, 1989
RCRA clearly establishes different scopes for these two different types of regulatory activities. The permitting program and the facility management standards in 40 C.F.R. … Allen & Associates, 389 F.Supp. 415, 416 (M.D.Ala.1975) (the Declaratory Judgment Act “provides no waiver of sovereign immunity”).
Cited 12 timesPublished
Ask Donna