Case law

Cotti v. California Department of Human Services Director

District Court, N.D. California · May 21, 2020

; and Defendants are entitled to 21 qualified immunity. … not violate clearly established 17 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Herrera v. City of Fremont

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 13, 2019

At a minimum, the officers would at least 13 be entitled to qualified immunity given the absence of any clearly established law saying that the 14 emergency exception to a warrantless entry does not apply where: an … “In determining whether an officer is 5 entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a 6 constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

Ruiz v. Ahern

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 3, 2021

Qualified Immunity 14 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability … established.”

Walters v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 16, 2020

The qualified immunity 25 analysis involves two inquiries. … 15 second inquiry for the qualified immunity analysis.

Arnold v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

726 F. Supp. 2d 1063 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 2010

Thus, the Plan clearly gives UNUM “discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Id. … This fact is confirmed by two letters that UNUM sent to Arnold in May 2005 and August 2005 that clearly indicate the benefits were paid in May 2005, retroactive to 2004. Id.

Morgan v. Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California

81 F.R.D. 669 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 20, 1979

No other plaintiff presents this situation as clearly. 2 Therefore, the Court finds that the addition of plaintiff Byer would also help in its understanding of the application of the challenged rules. … None of these qualifying factors is present in this case.

Kelly v. Custer

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 2025

See, e.g., Pratt v. 13 Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) (“[T]he prohibition against retaliatory 14 punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. 15

NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 24, 2021

The defense of qualified immunity 21 protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct 22 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Defendants also argue that plaintiffs have 15 not alleged the violation of a clearly established First Amendment right, but that qualified 16 immunity argument will be considered on summary judgment, for the reasons

Collins v. County of Alameda

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 26, 2021

Qualified Immunity 15 The County Defendants argue that, even if Ms. O’Malley and Ms. … Based on these facts, qualified immunity applies because Mr. 3 Collins has failed to show that the prosecutors violated a constitutional right that was clearly 4 established at the time of the conduct.2 See Pearson

Dudgeon v. Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 18, 2021

Whether Deputy Woodworth is Entitled to Qualified Immunity 26 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 27 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … immunity because the officer’s 27 conduct did not violate any clearly established law.

Young China Daily v. Chappell

742 F. Supp. 552 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 20, 1989

Kuo's background, he qualifies as a member of the graphic design profession. … The statute itself enumerates several examples of professions without any qualifying distinctions based on size of operation, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(32), and some of *555 these professionals clearly provide valuable professional

Buckins v. City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 9, 2021

Qualified immunity bars this claim. … The Rhodes decision denied qualified immunity. It held: 12 “[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, 13 for qualified immunity purposes.” Id.

Van Fossen v. United States

430 F. Supp. 1017 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 8, 1977

Clearly, the intent behind the améndment is to ease court congestion and speed the decisionmaking process through the settlement of meritorious claims prior to trial. … What a claimant must do is establish to the agency’s satisfaction that he or she has such a right under the law of that state.

Harris v. Garcia

734 F. Supp. 2d 973 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 2010

Therefore, petitioner has failed to establish that the state appellate court’s decision was contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent, or involved an unreasonable application of such precedent. … Petitioner has failed to establish that the state appellate court’s decision was contrary to clearly established *1012 United States Supreme Court precedent, or involved an unreasonable application of such precedent. 28 U.S.C

Boxall v. Sequoia Union High School District

464 F. Supp. 1104 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 9, 1979

Clearly such a situation is within the scope of the statutory scheme. Nevertheless, defendant contends that this right cannot be pursued in this forum at this time. … Plaintiffs clearly have complied with the administrative requirements for review under 20 U.S.C. § 1415 .

Sutter

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 6, 2026

, and as to Harbormaster Rademaker under qualified immunity. … 7 The court does not address Defendants’ qualified immunity argument with respect to Defendant Rademaker 1 Schmidt v.

In re Wong Kim Ark

71 F. 382 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 3, 1896

That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. … It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and es-iablished.

Kropp v. Scott

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 23, 2019

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 7 of which a reasonable person would have known.” … qualified immunity.”

Union Pacific Railroad v. California Public Utilities Commission

109 F. Supp. 2d 1186 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 2000

Applicability of Dormant Commerce Clause As a threshold matter, defendants contend that the two train make-up rules at issue are immune from challenge under the dormant commerce clause. … Accordingly, with respect to this subset of sites, plaintiffs have failed to establish any violation of the commerce clause.

United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

363 F. Supp. 644 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 23, 1973

Thus the ultimate question is whether Stockton qualified as a “designated terminal”, § 61(b)(3)(A); if so, by necessary implication, it operated to interrupt the continuity of the period of service for more than four hours … These almost conclusively establish that the accepted terminology in the industry is “home terminal” and “away-from-home terminal”.