Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,050 results
0.80s
District Court, N.D. California · Sep 30, 2020
Id. 2 The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 3 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 4 rights of … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine 16 whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such 17 right was “clearly established.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownKidwell-Bertagnolli v. County of Sonoma
District Court, N.D. California · Apr 10, 2024
immunity as there is no clearly established 22 law supporting the unconstitutionality of her conduct. … , 27 let alone clearly established law so holding.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2022
immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 3 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 4 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must 10 determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 11 and whether such right was clearly established, such that it
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 2022
immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 3 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 4 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must 10 determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right 11 and whether such right was clearly established, such that it
Cited 0 timesUnknownSommers v. City of Santa Clara
District Court, N.D. California · Feb 1, 2021
Constitutional violation 18 Defendant Stewart argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force 19 was objectively reasonable and there was no clearly established … Clearly Established Law 16 Defendant Stewart also argues that there was no clearly established law prohibiting
Cited 0 timesUnknownDiva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Techs., Inc.
392 F. Supp. 3d 1074 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 2019
This undercuts Diva's assertion that a public utility only qualifies for the exemption if its rates are actually established by the CPUC. … The Superior Court in Actions accordingly concluded that "[w]hen [ Hladek 's] analysis is applied to § 17024(1), then the immunity kicks in to the extent[ ] the PUC 'does have the jurisdiction to establish the rates for such
Cited 24 timesPublished551 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 16, 2008
Watson’s claim section 1983 claim for false arrest, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably believed there was probable cause for arresting Mr. Watson for resisting arrest. Mr. … Watson’s section 1983 claim for false arrest based on qualified immunity. The only evidence bearing on Agent Rubino’s role in the incident is his admission that he helped Agent Albín handcuff Mr. Watson.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. California · Aug 31, 2020
. § 1983 and that those rights were clearly 2 established at the time of the incident. As such, the defendants are not entitled to qualified 3 immunity. … The Court determines that qualified 11 immunity is not established at this stage of the case.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCiria v. City and County of San Francisco
District Court, N.D. California · Feb 22, 2024
association 6 was not clearly established in 1990 and 1991. … Indeed, the Ninth Circuit denied 10 qualified immunity for a police detective on the grounds that it was clearly established that he had 11 to disclose exculpatory evidence, before finding that the children could proceed
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 2023
Step Two 16 Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court must “consider 17 whether the law was clearly established at the time of the challenged … The Court will “analyze the clearly- 8 established prong of [its] qualified immunity inquiry by ‘considering the jury’s factual findings in 9 the special interrogatories and construing the evidence regarding the remaining
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Mar 6, 2020
immunity, the Court must consider 2 whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly 3 established at the time of the incident. … established law. 4 Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer 5 would not have recognized, under the circumstances, that their actions violated clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknown153 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 2001
In evaluating whether the preemption provision of the Copyright Act qualifies as a unique preemptive statute, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Rosciszewski v. … However, while a claim for conversion typically involves tangible property and thus may be immune from preemption, where a plaintiff is only seeking damages from a defendant’s reproduction of a work — and not the actual return
Cited 47 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. California · Oct 23, 2023
“The doctrine of qualified 8 immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly 9 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Bender, as the city manager, is entitled to qualified immunity 20 because there is no clearly established law “finding a city manager’s denial of a proposed meeting 21 agenda, or refusal to further consider providing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Nov 10, 2025
Qualified Immunity 27 Public employees “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated 1 established at the time.” District of Columbia v. … As a result, qualified immunity is not appropriate at present. See 21 Estate of Aguirre v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown242 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 23, 2002
In the alternative, the motion requires the Court to determine whether IOR is entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1601 , et seq. (“FSIA”). … DISMISSES the action. 15 This Order does not speak to the remaining issues of immunity or comity.
Cited 3 timesPublishedPowertech Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.
872 F. Supp. 2d 924 · District Court, N.D. California · May 21, 2012
Indeed, Tessera’s infringement expert in the ITC action focused part of his analysis on an Elpida wBGA chip that was clearly packaged by PTI and identified with a PTI model number. Powertech, 660 F.3d at 1308 n. 4. … This does not establish that PTI encouraged Tessera to accuse the PTI-packaged products as well.
Cited 3 timesPublishedGillespie v. County of Alameda
District Court, N.D. California · Nov 16, 2020
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects 6 government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 7 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Even if Defendants’ 1 alleged, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSean Moore v. City and County of San Francisco
District Court, N.D. California · Dec 10, 2020
“Qualified immunity shields 20 government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or 21 constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownJacqueline Lee Valentine v. San Mateo County; Chad Peace; and Daniel Radovich
District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 2026
Plaintiff’s SAC resolves the first and third of these 2 deficiencies.1 Plaintiff has clearly identified that she is suing the County of San Mateo, ADA 3 Coordinator Chad Peace in his individual and official capacities … But Plaintiff does not clearly allege that she requested these particular 5 accommodations, only that Defendants did not provide them and that the San Mateo Superior 6 Court “changed its rules to prohibit online ex
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. California · Oct 6, 2020
Qualified Immunity 1 the circumstances, he is still protected by qualified immunity. See generally Easley v. … Martin, a pedestrian, did not violate clearly established law on excessive force. 12 Here, Officer Ribeiro primarily relies on the principle that, to overcome qualified immunity, a 13 plaintiff must show that it was
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna