Case law

Doe v. White

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 24, 2020

immunity was appropriate because 6 the law was not “clearly established.” … established, see Hunger, 2014 WL 12599630, at *13,10 and several cases granting 5 qualified immunity on the ground that the right was not clearly established.

Barroca v. Hayward Area Recreation And Parks District

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 1, 2025

Qualified Immunity 2 The Supreme Court established that “[q]ualified immunity attaches when an official’s 3 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified “immunity 5 protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Id.

Raquel Chavez v. WYNAR

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 8, 2019

When determining whether a law is “clearly established” for the 9 purposes of qualified immunity, however, “[i]f the right is clearly established by decisional 10 authority of the Supreme Court or of this Circuit, our … a Fourth Amendment Bivens claim based on 14 a theory of unreasonable detention that is sufficiently clearly established to overcome qualified 15 immunity.

United States v. City of Pittsburg, Cal.

467 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 2, 1979

The findings of the arbitrator, which no party here disputes, as well as the undisputed affidavits submitted by the government, thus clearly establish that, notwithstanding the use of apparently permissive language, the authority … The immunity of the postal service from local and state regulation had been established and accepted long before the Johnson decision. See L.

Gomez v. Fachko

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 30, 2021

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from 17 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 18 constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, at the 6 time of Gomez’s shooting in October 21, 2017, it had long been clearly established that facts close 7 to those in Villaneuva and Orn could defeat qualified immunity.

Furumoto v. Lyman

362 F. Supp. 1267 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 21, 1973

Such a requirement, if widely adopted, could drive otherwise qualified and valuable scholars from academic life. … Although a statute is not vague, it may still be overly broad in that it includes within its scope clearly permissible activities.

Rollins v. Dignity Health

19 F. Supp. 3d 909 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 12, 2013

Several cases to have explored the issue appear to have read section C(i)’s language on who *916 may maintain a church plan to abrogate the limitations clearly set out in section A on who can establish a church plan. … If Congress intended to alter the types of entities that can establish a church plan, such amendment would have been made to section A, which again, clearly states that a church plan is one “established and maintained ...

Pearson v. State of California

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 17, 2023

immunity protects officers from being sued for damages unless they have 15 violated clearly established law. … force they used was excessive.”).1 15 Accordingly, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Herrera v. Ortega

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 2023

No. 37 at 7. 21 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 22 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … 533 U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 21 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 22 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether

Doe v. Santa Clara County Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2024

Jenkins May Have Qualified Immunity. 5 Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar 6 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 15 (2012). 16 Jenkins raises qualified immunity as a defense on the basis that there is no clearly 17 established constitutional

Patel v. United States

806 F. Supp. 873 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 13, 1992

place, a discretionary function immune from challenge under the Act.” … The officers at the scene clearly had a choice as to what specific actions to take in the course of serving the warrant.

Suzuki v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 25, 2019

In the motion, defendants argued that Porter is entitled to qualified 3 immunity because it is not clearly established that she violated plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 4 rights by fabricating evidence that another … No. 56 at 4:23–25, 5:21–6:1. 21 An appeal from the denial of qualified immunity is not frivolous solely because the district 22 court based its order on what it perceived to be clearly established law.

Allaf-Motedayen

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 2, 2025

immunity, see Keates v. … Koile, 883 F.3d 4 1228, 1235 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding plaintiff alleging civil rights claim must plead facts to 5 support finding defendant's conduct "violated clearly established constitutional rights of 6 which

Officers for Justice v. Civil S. Com'n, C. & C. San Francisco

371 F. Supp. 1328 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 26, 1973

Clearly, the promotion-level sergeant examination has not- been established as a validated test. … of sergeant, shall establish two lists of qualified candidates— a minority list composed of qualified blacks, Latinos, and Asians and a non-minority list composed of all others qualified. 3.

Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 1, 2022

Greene, 946 F.3d 471, 477 1 clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. … U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 10 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 11 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether a

Regal v. County of Santa Clara

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 2023

association, Garcia and Smith are 23 entitled to qualified immunity because their alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law 24 as required under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … 25 “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless 26 their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 27 person would

Gonzales v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity 9 The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability 10 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … But “[a]n 18 officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly 19 established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.” Mendoza v.

United States v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation

271 F. Supp. 561 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 1967

The investigation of possible federal offenses in their own district is clearly the prime function and duty of the grand jury. … . § 33 : “Under the immunity provisions in section 32 of this title, immunity shall extend only to a natural person who, in obedience to a subpoena, gives testimony under oath or produces evidence documentary or otherwise

McGee v. The City of Hercules

District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2025

The defense of qualified immunity protects “government 16 officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 17 established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A court considering a claim of qualified 19 immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 20 constitutional right and whether such right was “clearly established.”

In Re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation

474 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 25, 1979

Brown have established that local government units and their officials are not entitled to “state action” immunity solely by virtue of their governmental status. … would be immune under Parker , That goes too far.