Case law

Life Science Church v. Internal Revenue Service

525 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 21, 1981

Economou, supra, firmly established the principle that with rare exceptions federal officials charged with Constitutional violations can claim only the qualified immunity from prosecution enunciated in Scheuer v. … The Court concluded that qualified immunity constituted adequate protection for officials who vigorously exercise the lawful public authority vested in them.

Cuviello v. City of San Francisco

940 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 2013

(c) Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability when they have not violated a "clearly established" constitutional right. Camreta v. … There is no qualified immunity.

K. v. Sonoma County

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 27, 2024

See id. 21 County Social Workers, in their bare reliance on state law immunity, fail to establish that 22 they are entitled to qualified immunity under federal law. … Thus, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Lafferty violated a clearly established liberty 9 right and Lafferty is not entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claims at this stage. 10 b.

McArthur v. City & County of San Francisco

190 F. Supp. 3d 895 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 6, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine 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 … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must consider: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) whether the constitutional right was “clearly established

Palacios v. City of Oakland

970 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, N.D. California · May 13, 1997

The qualified immunity test is a two-part inquiry: (1) was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? and (2) under that law, could a reasonable official have believed the conduct to be lawful? Act Up! … Therefore, where the law is clearly established, an officer found to have used unreasonable force will not be entitled to qualified immunity. See id. 7 .

Fontanilla v. City and County of San Francisco

987 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 1997

The relevant inquiry for qualified immunity purposes “is whether a reasonable government official could have believed that his conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.” … Clearly Established Law The first step in deciding whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is to determine whether the parties agree that the law governing due process was “clearly established.”

Lockary v. Kayfetz

587 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 1984

Although “absolute immunity defeats a damage suit at the pleading stage [,] qualified immunity is available only if the evidence shows that those actions were taken in good faith, i.e., with a reasonable belief that they … Although its individual directors are absolutely immune from liability concerning their legislative acts, they enjoy only qualified immunity with respect to any executive activity in which they engaged, such as enforcement

United States v. Pisarski

274 F. Supp. 3d 1032 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 2017

Expanding upon the CUA, California’s Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”) provides immunity from criminal sanction for, among other things, the .possession, cultivation, possession for sale, and sale of marijuana to “qualified … of each collective would be at the time, of any future sale such that their qualified patient or caregiver status could be established.

Armstrong v. Wilson

942 F. Supp. 1252 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 20, 1996

Torcasio, a qualified immunity case, held that it was not clearly established, at the time of the alleged discrimination, that either the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA applied to state prisons. Torcasio v. … Gomez, 1995 WL 779128 , *2 (N.D.Cal. 1995), a qualified immunity case, a judge of this Court found that there was no authority to "clearly establish” that the ADA applied to state prisons at the time of the alleged incident

Dairy v. Bonham

25 F. Supp. 3d 1284 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 7, 2014

the Qualifying Period.” … Thus, the undisputed facts establish showing the statute at issue does not discriminate against nonresidents sufficiently to trigger scrutiny under the Privileges and Immunities Clause under Hillside Dairy and Chalker .

Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School District

982 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 10, 1997

Officials are shielded by qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.; accord Cohen v. … . -, 117 S.Ct. 1290 , 137 L.Ed.2d 364 (1997) (liability is established when the Court determines that a reasonable person would have known that the action clearly violates a citizen’s right).

Garcia v. Williams

704 F. Supp. 984 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 1988

In order for the qualified immunity to apply in any context, the official’s conduct must be objectively reasonable and not in violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity.” Id. at 1051 n. 29.

Mercy-Peninsula Ambulance, Inc. v. County of San Mateo

592 F. Supp. 956 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 1984

Pursuant to that program, the County established procedures to certify qualified ambulance personnel to perform paramedic services under the supervision of an “acute care hospital” within the meaning of Cal.Health & Saf.Code … They establish minimum training standards but permit counties to establish more exacting ones.

Warren v. Marcus

78 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 29, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendant also moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs wrongful arrest claim on the grounds that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of 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

Abudiab v. City & County

833 F. Supp. 2d 1168 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 2011

Plaintiff, in opposition, makes no argument with respect to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, cites to no authority that would support the notion that the law was clearly established and therefore appears to concede … Accordingly, Georgopoulos is not entitled to qualified immunity because per Awabdy , it was clearly established that non-peace officers could be held liable for malicious prosecution where a “state or local official [ ] .

Davis v. City of San Jose

69 F. Supp. 3d 1001 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 24, 2014

Moreover, De-fendánts contend that Plaintiff has failed' to establish that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 15. … Past the pleading stage, Defendants *1007 may introduce evidence of their version of events, and it may well be that Defendants can establish qualified immunity at summary judgment. .

Hampsmire v. City of Santa Cruz

899 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 28, 2012

“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 … Typically, qualified immunity would apply under such circumstances. See Grossman v.

Miller v. County of Santa Cruz

796 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 29, 1992

Alternatively, Sheriff Noren seeks summary judgment, in his favor alone, on the theory that the undisputed facts show that he is entitled to the defénse of qualified immunity. … Because defendants’ motion is granted on res judicata/collateral estoppel grounds, the court does not reach the qualified immunity issue.

Jaramillo v. City of San Mateo

76 F. Supp. 3d 905 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 19, 2014

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of 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 … “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (citing Hope v.

Nakao v. Rushen

580 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 21, 1984

Defendant also maintains that he is entitled to summary judgment, because the undisputed facts establish that his conduct is protected by the qualified good faith immunity defined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … established law and are not protected by good faith immunity.