Case law

Call v. Badgley

254 F. Supp. 3d 1051 · District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2017

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an entitlement, provided to government officials in the exercise of their duties, not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation. Saucier v. … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Wasson v. Sonoma County Junior College District

4 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 5, 1997

The defense 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 … The test for qualified immunity test is a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable official have believed his conduct was lawful?

Easton v. Sutter Coast Hospital

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 316 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2000

Based upon the purpose of the immunity provision and upon the Legislature’s drafting of section 15634, we conclude that the privilege created by the section is absolute rather than qualified. … Clearly the purpose of the statutory scheme of which section 15630 is a part and the precise language of the 1998 version of the section, would not be advanced by denying immunity to either Moreau or Kossuth.

Sanders v. Lockyer

365 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 28, 2005

immunity does not apply, California’s Qualifying Act and Contraband Amendment are not preempted by federal antitrust law. … See PTI, 100 F.Supp.2d at 1193 (“the private defendants are clearly immune for their activities involved with the negotiation, execution, and attempts to implement the MSA, the Qualifying Statute, and the Model Act”); Forces

Hart v. Celaya

548 F. Supp. 2d 789 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 11, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defense In the alternative, Defendants Celaya, Salopek and Camarena assert that they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The defense 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

Kerkeles v. City of San Jose

199 Cal. App. 4th 1001 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 2011

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … Summary judgment was therefore not available to the defendant officers on the ground of qualified immunity; the officers’ alleged conduct violated Ricciuti’s “clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent

Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol

89 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2000

Plaintiffs thus clearly are alleging that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Northern District. … or all of the immunities bar Plaintiffs’ claims. 3 Davison by Sims v.

Glazer v. City of Long Beach

210 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 7, 2000

When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity to preclude liability for alleged Fourth Amendment violations, the court “must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct … Under this standard, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity, unless a reasonable police officer would have known that the conduct at issue was unlawful under clearly established law.

Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim

187 Cal. App. 4th 734 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2010

immunity under [the CUA]. … Second, while it is true that legislation may not immunize a business from Unruh Civil Rights Act claims for discrimination that occurs in that establishment (see Gibson , at p. 1093, relying on Orloff v.

K.T. v. Pittsburg Unified School District

219 F. Supp. 3d 970 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 8, 2016

That said, sovereign immunity—unlike qualified immunity—“partakes of the nature of jurisdictional bar” and may be raised for the first time, well, anytime. See Edelman v. … K.T. is clearly a “qualified individual with a disability” under both statutes—and the District does not suggest otherwise, see MTD at 12-15; Reply at 14-16.

Little v. Gore

148 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 8, 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 … Accordingly, the Court turns to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the incident. See Jensen v.

City of Claremont v. Kruse

177 Cal. App. 4th 1153 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2009

The MMP also “immunizes from prosecution a range of conduct ancillary to the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients. [Citation.]” (People v. … It accords additional immunities to qualified patients, holders of valid identification cards, and primary caregivers who “collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.)

Chien Van Bui v. City of San Francisco

61 F. Supp. 3d 877 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 25, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. (citing Anderson v.

Cornell v. City & Cnty. of S.F.

225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Nov 16, 2017

By then, appellants contend, the jury's findings establish without doubt that Cornell was in full flight, clearly indicating consciousness of guilt. … Cornell is correct that Venegas II held that the federal qualified immunity "does not apply to actions brought under ...

Perez v. Diaz

331 F. Supp. 3d 1101 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 21, 2017

Applicable Law "In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the … If the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct, "the officer receives qualified immunity." S.B. , 864 F.3d at 1015 .

People v. Clark

230 Cal. App. 4th 490 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2014

’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver prior to his or her arrest.” … It is well established that immunity from arrest is exceptional, and, when granted, ordinarily is granted expressly. (See generally 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.

Harper Ex Rel. Harper v. Poway Unified School District

345 F. Supp. 2d 1096 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 4, 2004

on qualified immunity grounds. … The affirmative defense 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

Life Science Church v. Internal Revenue Service

525 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 21, 1981

Economou, supra, firmly established the principle that with rare exceptions federal officials charged with Constitutional violations can claim only the qualified immunity from prosecution enunciated in Scheuer v. … The Court concluded that qualified immunity constituted adequate protection for officials who vigorously exercise the lawful public authority vested in them.

Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District

167 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 2, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that the three individual defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on the basis of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity requires a two-step analysis. … If no constitutional right would have been violated if the allegations were established, then there is no need to continue the qualified immunity analysis. Id.

Palacios v. City of Oakland

970 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, N.D. California · May 13, 1997

The qualified immunity test is a two-part inquiry: (1) was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? and (2) under that law, could a reasonable official have believed the conduct to be lawful? Act Up! … Therefore, where the law is clearly established, an officer found to have used unreasonable force will not be entitled to qualified immunity. See id. 7 .