Case law

Davis v. City of San Jose

69 F. Supp. 3d 1001 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 24, 2014

Moreover, De-fendánts contend that Plaintiff has failed' to establish that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 15. … Past the pleading stage, Defendants *1007 may introduce evidence of their version of events, and it may well be that Defendants can establish qualified immunity at summary judgment. .

Hubbard v. Brown

50 Cal. 3d 189 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1990

Contrary to the position of the Court of Appeal, we believe the legislative history of section 846 clearly demonstrates that a federal grazing *194 permit is an interest in real property sufficient to qualify its holder for … As previously discussed, the Legislature clearly intended, when amending section 846, to immunize private owners of easements and of revocable licenses from tort liability to recreational users.

Atayde v. Napa State Hospital

255 F. Supp. 3d 978 · District Court, E.D. California · May 25, 2017

Qualified Immunity The state defendants additionally argue that defendants White and Matteuc-ci are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs § 1983 deliberate indifference claims. (Doc. No. 78-1 at 20-21.) … Government officials enjoy qualified-immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Jeffers v.

Thomas v. Dillard

212 F. Supp. 3d 938 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 10, 2016

42 U.S.C. § 1983 causes of action on the basis of qualified immunity. … No Qualified Immunity for Civil Code section 52.1. There is no qualified immunity defense available to a defendant for a Civil Code section 52.1 cause of action. See Venegas v.

Jaramillo v. City of San Mateo

76 F. Supp. 3d 905 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 19, 2014

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 … “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (citing Hope v.

Tuthill v. City of San Buenaventura

223 Cal. App. 4th 1081 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2014

for AHP units because their income levels exceeded AHP qualifying income levels. … The "Mandatory Legal Duty" Exception To qualify for the exception, a plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of an enactment that imposes a mandatory, not discretionary, duty on the public entity and (2)

Cabral v. County of Glenn

624 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2009

Officer Dahl’s Qualified Immunity Defense However, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether a right is clearly established must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.

Tindall v. County of Nevada

California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 2025

(See Allyson, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 1313 [§ 815’s “language is plain,” “unambiguous,” and “clearly intended to ensure that applicable immunity provisions of the Tort Claims Act will prevail over its liability provisions … looking to the Vehicle Code: “Regardless of the fact that a bicycle path may come under the broad brush of being part of the streets and highway system in general,” the type of path the bicyclist was riding on “d[id] not qualify

Rogan v. City of Los Angeles

668 F. Supp. 1384 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 20, 1987

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. 8 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 … The Court recognizes that summary judgment is particularly appropriate in the area of qualified immunity. Whether the law was clearly established at the time of the events at issue is a question of law. Mitchell v.

N.G. v. Downey Regional Medical Center

140 F. Supp. 3d 1036 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 23, 2015

Specifically, § 1395ff(c)(5) grants immunity to qualified independent contractors who conduct reviews of initial determinations of *1043 Medicare benefits. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395ff(c)(l)-1395ff(c)(5). … . § 1395ff, Defendant does not qualify for immunity under this section because it does not claim to be an independent contractor who participates in the Medicare appeal determination process.

Newton v. County of Napa

217 Cal. App. 3d 1551 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1990

Appellants argue that, if they can establish that no emergency existed, the county is not immune from liability. … Federal law recognizes both a qualified and an absolute immunity of public officials.

Esparza v. County of Los Angeles

224 Cal. App. 4th 452 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 2014

Mora did not qualify for a position as a deputy sheriff because he failed the background investigation for reasons of “Financial Irresponsibility and Judgment.” … The party asserting collateral estoppels bears the burden of establishing these requirements. (Ibid.)

Endsley v. Luna

750 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 5, 2010

Finally, he asserts that Defendants are not immune under either the doctrine of qualified immunity, because the constitutional rights allegedly abridged had been clearly established since Youngberg , or the doctrine of discretionary … For the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, then, the Eighth Amendment provides the “clearly established” contours of protection against excessive force.

Shepherd v. Jones

136 Cal. App. 3d 1049 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1982

Respondents have qualified immunity from liability. … The grant of qualified immunity for public officials presupposes that mistakes will be made. However, “[t]here must be a degree of immunity if [our] schools or cities are to function effectively. [Citation.]

Ennabe v. Manosa

58 Cal. 4th 697 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 2014

The moving party bears the burden of showing the court that the plaintiff ‘has not established, and cannot reasonably expect to establish,’ ” the elements of his or her cause of action. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] … As recognized by these two cases, persons who refused to obtain a liquor license and establishments permitted to serve alcohol on military bases without a license retained full immunity from liability.

Estate of Abdollahi Ex Rel. Abdollahi v. County of Sacramento

405 F. Supp. 2d 1194 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 15, 2005

An officer can establish qualified immunity by demonstrating (1) that the law governing her conduct was not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions, or (2) that under the clearly established law, she could … The question of immunity generally is not one for the jury. Qualified immunity “ ‘is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability’....

Atkinson v. County of Tulare

790 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, E.D. California · May 18, 2011

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.” … The qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was clearly established

Nakao v. Rushen

580 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 21, 1984

Defendant also maintains that he is entitled to summary judgment, because the undisputed facts establish that his conduct is protected by the qualified good faith immunity defined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … established law and are not protected by good faith immunity.

People v. Galambos

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 844 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 2002

As for others, he could have attempted to qualify as a primary caregiver for particular individuals whom he wanted to help, but failed to qualify himself for this legal alternative. … Defendant did not qualify as a primary caregiver under this statute.

Estate of Hernandez-Rojas ex rel. Hernandez v. United States

62 F. Supp. 3d 1169 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2014

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Further, that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Accordingly,' none of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity. B.