Case law

Standridge v. City of Seaside

545 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 26, 1982

Until recently, the qualified immunity defense required the establishment of both objective and subjective good faith. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 320 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). … It is now the rule that “... government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Megargee v. Wittman

550 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2008

Baker’s conduct was not clearly established as of June 6, 2005.” … Qualified immunity protects section 1983 defendants “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Hendon v. Ramsey

528 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 28, 2007

Qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Meredith v. Erath

182 F. Supp. 2d 964 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 19, 2001

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … . *974 In order to establish whether the defendants should receive qualified immunity, the Court must consider (1) whether the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established and (2) whether, given this clearly

Stanley Brumer v. City of Los Angeles

24 Cal. App. 4th 983 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1994

Appellants contend: (1) the policy does not qualify under the statute unless approved by either the police commission or the city council; (2) a public entity loses the statutory immunity if a plaintiff can prove, at trial … The answer filed by the city and the officers alleged, “these Defendants are immune from liability . ...” A clearly stated affirmative defense needs no citation to statutory authority to be well pleaded.

McAlexander v. Siskiyou Joint Community College

222 Cal. App. 3d 768 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1990

In the present case, we find the omission of language limiting immunity to liability for acts at the scene of an emergency in section 1799.100 clearly reflects the Legislature’s intention not to limit immunity to third party … In each of the foregoing sections immunity is qualified by a requirement that immunity shall not apply if the acts are not performed in good faith, or are performed in a grossly negligent manner.

Frary v. County of Marin

81 F. Supp. 3d 811 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 25, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As it is “clearly established that officers [can] not intentionally deny or delay access to medical care,” Clement, 298 F.3d at 906 , Nurse Fetterly is not presently entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

BUSHELL-McINTYRE v. Foster

520 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 21, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST A claim of qualified immunity requires a two part analysis. … With regard to this second incident, the evidence clearly established that Officer Foster believed that Plaintiff shoved him.

Casey N. v. County of Orange

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2022

“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 … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court makes a two-pronged inquiry: (1) has a constitutional right been violated, and (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

Dougherty v. Golden Gate Bridge

31 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 1998

qualifying for Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Earlier in the opinion, however, the court clearly had established that the Port Authority enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, id. at 613 ; and it was not until the court held that the Port Authority' enjoyed Eleventh Amendment

Estate of Casillas v. City of Fresno

342 F. Supp. 3d 990 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 23, 2018

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Rather, "clearly established law must be particularized to the facts of the case." Id.

Mann v. County of San Diego

147 F. Supp. 3d 1066 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 23, 2015

established right, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims rested on the Po-linsky examinations. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time the action was taken.”

Whitaker v. Garcetti

291 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 17, 2003

(ii) The Defenses The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991). … immunity on this claim, since today’s constitutional holding obviously was not “clearly established” at the time of the activity.

Milstein v. Cooley

208 F. Supp. 2d 1116 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 12, 2002

Qualified immunity, however, shields § 1983 defendants “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Qualified Immunity As Applied To The Defendants In holding that there is a clearly established constitutional due process right not *1122 to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately

Swan v. United States

159 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 21, 2001

Young-Millers’s Qualified Immunity from Swan’s Eighth Amendment Claim The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The qualified immunity analysis then becomes a two-part test: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Robinson v. Catlett

725 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 19, 2010

Qualified Immunity Alternatively, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. … State officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Santos v. County of Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services

299 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 6, 2004

Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, this Court finds plaintiff does not have a clearly established liberty interest, and defendant social workers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Section 1983 claims.

Garcia v. American Golf Corp.

11 Cal. App. 5th 532 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2017

Even if the walkway qualifies as a trail, City is not entitled to trail immunity. … These cases pertain to whether a particular path qualifies as a trail for purposes of trail immunity. Neither case analyzes a causation issue similar to the one herein. V.

Martin v. County of San Diego

650 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 23, 2009

at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Maus’ qualified immunity argument.

Crowe v. County of San Diego

359 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 28, 2005

, pursuant to which the officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the law was not “clearly established,” i.e., if it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful under the circumstances … Again, as explained by the Supreme Court most recently in Brosseau , in a case such as this, a plaintiff cannot defeat a summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds simply by pointing to case law clearly establishing