Case law

Marshall v. County of San Diego

238 Cal. App. 4th 1095 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2015

The defense of qualified immunity "A government official sued under [section] 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … immunity unless they violated a "clearly established" constitutional right.

Mendoza v. City of West Covina

206 Cal. App. 4th 702 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2012

The qualified immunity rule shields public officers from section 1983 actions unless the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The Saucier court established a two-step procedure for determining whether a defendant’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity.

King v. State

242 Cal. App. 4th 245 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2015

But Defendants are only entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if, taking the facts in the light most favorable to [the Plaintiff], they violated no clearly established constitutional right. … The state and Tawney premise their 26 qualified immunity claim on an extremely narrow, factually detailed view of what the clearly established law would be in this case.

Bearman v. California Medical Board

176 Cal. App. 4th 1588 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2009

In determining whether supervisor has qualified immunity, we “undertake a two-step analysis: ‘(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … To avoid the qualified immunity defense, appellant must show that supervisor’s conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. [Citations.]”

Bradley v. Medical Board

56 Cal. App. 4th 445 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1997

Immunity The qualified immunity defense protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … When qualified immunity is asserted, we must undertake a two-step analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol

181 Cal. App. 4th 856 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2010

“A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right. [Citation.] As stated in Saucier [v. … The high court explained that ‘[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.’ [Citation.]

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 741 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2007

Today qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983 *1242 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. 24 By “clearly established … established’ at the time.”

Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court

30 Cal. App. 4th 713 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1994

They dismiss defendants’ argument that the court failed to rule on their qualified immunity defense. … However, the qualified immunity under federal law upon which the defendants rely here does not apply if their actions violated a clearly established *731 statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2016

Proposition D bans medical marijuana businesses, but grants certain qualifying businesses a limited immunity from enforcement of the ordinance. … As set forth in the Declarations attached to these moving papers, Progressive has resolved the LiveScan issue and now fully qualifies for limited immunity.

Prokop v. City of Los Angeles

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 355 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2007

—In Carroll, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 606 , the court held that a paved bicycle path qualifies as a “trail” under the immunity provisions of section 831.4. … We have already disposed of this argument: Government Code section 815, subdivision (b), clearly provides that the liability of a public entity established by “this part”—which includes the section 815.6 liability for failure

Jimenez v. County of Los Angeles

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2005

were entitled to qualified immunity. … Government employees generally are shielded by qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

MacIas v. County of Los Angeles

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 364 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2006

violation, the right was not clearly established. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established).

Ogborn v. City of Lancaster

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2002

The Individual Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Governmental Immunity. … This immunity provision bars the Ogborns’ claim for trespassing because the warrant clearly authorized entry onto the Property and into the structures located there.

Browne v. County of Tehama

213 Cal. App. 4th 704 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2013

such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.’ … The Ordinance is clearly not a ban. 11 Simply put, the Ordinance does not prohibit the cultivation of medical marijuana by qualified patients.

RITSCHEL v. City of Fountain Valley

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2006

Here, the court had heard the bulk of the evidence during the qualified immunity defense phase. … When a court determines “no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” (Ibid.)

Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles

222 Cal. App. 3d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1990

The County insists the law clearly provides absolute immunity for the conduct in issue here. “Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. [Citation.]” … “Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Zisk v. City of Roseville

56 Cal. App. 3d 41 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

. §§ 1983 and/or 1985) because the city councilmen are not immune from liability thereunder and because the pleadings establish that the councilmen clearly violated established constitutional rights of plaintiffs. … The court found them immune from liability, stating: “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and

Robbins v. Regents of University of California

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2005

The trial court agreed that Suris was entitled to immunity, finding there was no evidence of a constitutional violation (and even if there was such a violation, it was not one of clearly established law), by virtue of LaVine … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity.

ELENE H. v. County of Los Angeles

220 Cal. App. 3d 1445 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1990

Defendants contend that their conduct was totally immunized and, if not totally immunized, was within the range of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers recognized by federal law. (Malley v. … Clearly the behavior of a law enforcement officer which is grossly incompetent or demonstrates knowing disregard for established legal rights is not protected by qualified immunity. *1454 In the case at bench, the defendants

Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Ass'n

32 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1995

That is, while a public employee’s immunity is qualified, the immunity of a public entity for misrepresentation by its employee, whether intentional or negligent, is absolute. (Gov. Code, § 818.8; see Harshbarger v. … case to case, of the requisite qualifying facts.