Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersCA

10,000+ results

1.48s

  • 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.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Amezquita v. Garcia-Cortez

    District Court, N.D. California · Jul 3, 2024

    No. 32 at 26-27. 12 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability 13 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 14 … U.S. at 194); Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1000 (qualified immunity analysis 11 requiring (1) determining the contours of the clearly established right at the time of the 12 challenged conduct and (2) examining whether a

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • 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.

    Cited 59 timesPublished
  • 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

    Cited 61 timesPublished
  • J.P. v. County of Alameda

    District Court, N.D. California · Nov 19, 2021

    See Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117 (holding that 2 qualified immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White v. Pauly, 137 S. … City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 12 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[O]ur qualified immunity determination with respect to Officer Brice rests 13 solely on the ‘clearly established’ law prong; we do not reach the question of whether

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • McKay v. City of Hayward

    949 F. Supp. 2d 971 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 11, 2013

    In the absence of clearly established law, Officers Cox, Purnell, and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim. … Parks, 383 F.3d 1058, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity to officers who failed to intervene where law clearly established use of force was excessive).

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Corcoran v. Fletcher

    160 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 26, 2001

    Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, then, “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … Clearly Established Law “[W]hether the law was clearly established ... is a pure question of law for the court to decide.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir.1994).

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Reynolds v. County of San Diego

    224 F. Supp. 3d 1034 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 3, 2016

    Plaintiffs argue Defendant Bryson’s claim of qualified immunity should be defeated because she should have known that her actions violated the Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights. … In the Ninth Circuit, courts assess qualified immunity using a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Buckheit v. Dennis

    713 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2010

    Standard Governing Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a constitutional violation occurred, governmental officials are immune if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Where a plaintiff asserts a Fourth Amendment violation based on the absence of probable cause, the relevant inquiry with respect to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “whether a ‘reasonable

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Nelson v. Silverman

    888 F. Supp. 1041 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 6, 1995

    The Bothke court merely assumed that there is a clearly established right of freedom from abusive tax collection activities for the purposes of dealing with a qualified immunity issue. … A defendant would be immune from suit if he could establish that his actions were objectively reasonable by reference to clearly established law. Harlow v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Doe v. Beard

    63 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2014

    In the alternative, if there was a constitutional violation, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the right was not clearly established. (Id. at 14.) 1. … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Trevino v. Gates

    798 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 7, 1992

    established law. … Under Harlow , the council members would be entitled to qualified immunity for acts in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Martin v. City of Oceanside

    205 F. Supp. 2d 1142 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2002

    However, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. … Therefore, the officers did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. The *1153 officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. 3.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Price v. County of San Diego

    990 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 8, 1998

    immunity. 23 Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits based on their conduct in situations in which they exercise discretion, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. … If the right was not clearly established, then the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. See Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 629 (9th Cir.1991).

    Cited 41 timesPublished
  • Drevdahl v. City of Fairfield

    District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2022

    “Qualified immunity protects 7 government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 8 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“Qualified 11 immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a 12 statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Robinson v. City of San Diego

    954 F. Supp. 2d 1010 · District Court, S.D. California · May 28, 2013

    clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. … Specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • 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.)

    Cited 43 timesPublished
  • (PS) Machado v. Lizarraga

    District Court, E.D. California · Jul 9, 2020

    Qualified Immunity 26 Lastly, defendants argue that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of 27 qualified immunity. … Cal. 2010) (denying to dismiss complaint on 9 qualified immunity grounds because it could not be clearly determined on the face of complaint, 10 but declaring that the ground could be raised through summary judgment).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Willson v. Cagle

    711 F. Supp. 1521 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 1988

    clearly established constitutional rights. … However, the Harlow opinion also clearly states that qualified immunity is available only to "government officials performing discretionary functions." Id.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose

    District Court, N.D. California · Aug 3, 2023

    Emmons, 139 S.Ct. 500, 27 503 (2019). 1 district framed the relevant qualified immunity question as “whether it was clearly 2 established that an officer … immunity on the ground that the law is not clearly 16 established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.