Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
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 timesPublishedDistrict 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 timesUnknown213 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 timesPublishedJimenez 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 timesPublishedDistrict 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 timesUnknown949 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 timesPublished160 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 timesPublishedReynolds 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 timesPublished713 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 timesPublished888 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 timesPublished63 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 timesPublished798 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 timesPublished205 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 timesPublished990 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 timesPublishedDistrict 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 timesUnknown954 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 timesPublishedRITSCHEL 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 timesPublishedDistrict 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 timesUnknown711 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 timesPublishedNAACP 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