green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
55.7 score
“the acts of the nevada board are no less judicial or prosecutorial because they may have been committed in error. it is the available procedures, not the manner in which they are exer- cised in a particular case, that is the critical inquiry . . . .”
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Sternberg v. Warneck
But see Mishler, 191 F.3d at 1008-09 (holding prosecutorial immunity applied where a Nevada Board of Medical Examiner member did not personally attest to facts 23 but instead signed the document initiating charges on information and belief “as part of the actual disciplinary complaint” rather than in the document used to establish probable cause). 1 joinder did not meet her burden of showing she is entitled to it when viewing Sternberg’s 2 allegations in the light most favorable to him.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ernest Bonner, Jr. v. Kimberly Kirchmeyer
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
filing charges and initiating prosecution are functions that are integral to a prosecutor's work.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Peterson v. Sutter Medical Foundation
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
there is no 14 question that acts occurring during the disciplinary hearing process fall within the scope of 15 absolute immunity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
LaTulippe v. Harder
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
there is no question that acts occurring during the disciplinary hearing process fall within the scope of absolute immunity
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ibsen v. Diaz
olding hearings, taking evidence, and adjudicating are functions that are inherently judicial in nature.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Geier
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
acts of the are no less judicial or prosecutorial because they may have been committed in error
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kevin Buckwalter v. State of Nevada Board
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the acts of the nevada board are no less judicial or prosecutorial because they may have been committed in error. it is the available procedures, not the manner in which they are exer- cised in a particular case, that is the critical inquiry . . . .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Buckwalter v. Nevada Board of Medical Examiners
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the acts of the nevada board are no less judicial or prosecutorial because they may have been committed in error. it is the available procedures, not the manner in which they are exercised in a particular case, that is the critical inquiry....
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Granville H. Marshall, Jr. v. Medical Board of California
In 1999, the court in Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 25 1999), held that the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners and its members were entitled to 26 all defendants in the caption.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Logan Martin Isaac v. James Ivory Manning, Jr., Shelly Boshart Davis, Renee Perry, Rebecca Maile, and John and Jane Does 1–10
Id.; Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Isaac v. Manning
Id.; Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Olding v. Pima County Prosecutor's Office
(Doc. 1 at 2.) 14 The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has recognized that “[i]t 15 is well settled that judges and prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity.” Weaver, 2022 16 WL 17741062 , at *3 (quoting Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rindal v. Inslee
Within the 23 professional-licensure context at issue here, the Ninth Circuit has held that, “There is no question 24 that acts occurring during [a] [state medical board’s] disciplinary hearing process fall within the 1 scope of absolute immunity; holding hearings, taking evidence, and adjudicating are functions 2 that are inherently judicial in nature.” Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Paul Thomas v. Kathleen Harder
See Olsen, 363 F.3d at 924-26; Buckwalter, 678 F.3d at 741-46 ; Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1003-09 (9th Cir. 1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bonner v. Medical Board of California
(4×)
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 12 513–17 (1978); Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Weaver v. Arizona, State of
Judge Ryan and Prosecutor Rowley 13 “It is well settled that judges and prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity.” 14 Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peterson v. Sutter Medical Foundation
See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 515 (1978) (extending prosecutorial 16 immunity to agency enforcement action); Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir. 1999) 17 (extending quasi-judicial immunity to state medical board). 18 “[I]mmunity decisions are based on the nature of the function performed, not the identity 19 of the actor who performed it.” Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal 20 quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mirza v. Bullhead City Hospital Corporation
Plaintiffs also claim that anything related 12 to the “Wellness Committee and its activities is not part of the peer review process.” (Doc. 13 60 at 13). 14 Plaintiffs cite Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court of Arizona, 742 15 P.2d 1382 , 1386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987), and Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir. 16 1999), for the proposition that, as they say, “[i]f a cause of action is derived by conduct 17 that was not part of the peer review process, then no immunity attaches.” (Doc. 60 at 13). 18 The Court notes that Humana dealt with the issue of whether informati…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hasbrouck v. Yavapai, County of
Hearing Officers 12 “It is well settled that judges and prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity.” 13 Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Rhee v. Alvarez
See 11 Olsen, 363 F.3d at 925–26; Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir. 1999); Gambee v. 12 Williams, 971 F. Supp. 474, 477 (D.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bonner v. Medical Board of California
(3×)
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 2 513–17 (1978); Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph, D.V.M. v. Abrams
(DPHSS Defendants 5 Objections 13, ECF No. 59.) In support of their argument, they rely on Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 6 (9th Cir. 1999). 7 In Mishler, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners was 8 entitled to absolute immunity.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jehan Mir v. Kenneth Deck
See Olsen, 363 F.3d at 926 (absolute immunity applies to those actions which are judicial or closely associated with the judicial process); Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1009 (9th Cir. 1999) (medical board officials are entitled to absolute immunity for their quasi-judicial and quasi-prosecutorial functions).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eric Dover v. Kathleen Haley, Jd
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants because the alleged constitutional violations arose from the performance of functions that “are inherently judicial in nature,” Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir.1999) (absolute immunity applies to those" engaged in state medical board disciplinary proceeding when they perform actions that “are judicial or closely associated with the judicial process”), and Dover failed to allege facts sufficient to show any constitutional violations arising from the performance of “ministerial” acts, Olse…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Chudacoff v. University Medical Center
(13×)
also: Cited "see"
Plaintiff argues that Buckwalter is merely an extension of Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir.1999), and therefore cannot serve as the basis for an untimely motion for summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Tate, Jr. v. Beverly Neyland
(2×)
Exam’rs, — F.3d -, -, No. 11-15742, slip op. 6539, 6550 (9th Cir. June 8, 2012); Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007-08 (9th Cir.1999); see also Middlesex Cnty.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marvin v. Fitch
Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding that individual members of the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners are entitled to absolute immunity for their quasi-judicial acts); Ducharm, 118 Nev. at 617 , 55 P.3d at 425 ; Duff, 114 Nev. at 571 , 958 P.2d at 87 (holding that a court-appointed psychologist was entitled to absolute immunity because he was acting as an extension of the court). [Headnote 10] To determine whether an individual is entitled to absolute immunity, the Supreme Court has adopted a “functional approach,” which “ ‘looks to the nature of the functio…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey McCabe v. Patrick Hart
Absolute prosecutorial immunity covers “acts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing ... for trial,” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993), including “[fliling charges and initiating prosecution.” Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bearman v. California Medical Board
(See Bradley v. Medical Board, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 454, fn. 7 [absolute prosecutorial immunity]; Mishler v. Clift (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 998, 1007-1008 [state medical board and officers enjoy absolute immunity].) It is settled that a civil rights complaint may be dismissed on demurrer where the defendant has absolute or qualified immunity.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gorman v. Office of the Insurance Commissioner
See id. at 923; Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th Cir.1999) (extending absolute prosecutorial and judicial immunity to state regulatory officials for their roles in a state administrative agency’s judicial process).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Yoonessi v. Albany Medical Center
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
“This immunity reflects the long-standing ‘general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.’ ” Olsen, 363 F.3d at 922 (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 , 13 Wall. 335, 347 , 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871));. see also Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir.1999) (“The essential rationale is that, without protection from retaliatory suits, a judge would lose ‘that independence …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Gammie
For absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either "constitutional or statutory violations." Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 268 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993)) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Gammie
For absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either "constitutional or statutory violations." Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 268 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993)) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lloyd Dela Cruz v. Kauai County Melvin K. Soong, Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Kauai
Immunity determinations thus rest on “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Kalina, 522 U.S. at 127 , 118 S.Ct. 502 (citations omitted); Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir.1999). 2 In this case, Prosecutor Soong is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for his conduct in swearing to facts in support of the bail revocation motion. 3 Soong lost that protection because he stepped outside of his prosecutorial role, and into the role of witness, when he personally attested to the truth of facts in the affidavit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tobin For Governor v. Illinois State Board Of Elections
See, e.g., Beck v. Tex. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 204 F.3d 629 , 633-36 (5th Cir.) (granting absolute immunity to members of the Texas State Board of Dental Examiners for their decision to revoke the plaintiff's license to practice dentistry), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 871 (2000); Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1004-08 (9th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases) (holding that the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners was entitled to absolute immunity for acts occurring during the disciplinary hearing process, including holding hearings, taking evidence, and adjudicating the dispute); Romano v. Bible, 169 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tobin for Governor v. Illinois State Board of Elections
See, e.g., Beck v. Tex. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 204 F.3d 629 , 633-36 (5th Cir.2000) (granting absolute immunity to members of the Texas State Board of Dental Examiners for their decision to revoke the plaintiff's license to practice dentistry), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 871 , 121 S.Ct. 171 , 148 L.Ed.2d 117 (2000); Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1004-08 (9th Cir.1999) (collecting cases) (holding that the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners was entitled to absolute immunity for acts occurring during the disciplinary hearing process, including holding hearings, taking evidence, and adjudicat…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leonard R. Milstein v. Stephen L. Cooley Robert B. Foltz Countyof Los Angeles, Opinion
See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 , 96 S.Ct. 984 ; Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir.1999) (“Filing charges and initiating prosecution are functions that are integral to a prosecutor’s work.”) Accordingly, Appellees’ functions before this grand jury are protected by absolute immunity. (v) Securing an Information and an Arrest Warrant The foregoing reasoning applies with even more force to the prosecutor’s actual decision to prosecute, whether it be by grand jury indictment or information.
discussed
Cited "see"
Manzur v. Montoya
See Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners and its members “are functionally comparable to judges and prosecutors ... [and] are entitled to absolute immunity for their quasi-judicial acts”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Manzur v. Montoya
See Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners and its members “are functionally comparable to judges and prosecutors ... [and] are entitled to absolute immunity for their quasi-judicial acts”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Martin v. Central States Emblems, Inc.
See Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 , 1008 n. 7 (9th Cir.1999) (deciding that where complaint did not specifically refer to document or discuss its contents, and district court implicitly accepted document as part of pleadings, appellate court could consider document when deciding whether complaint failed to state claim); see also County of Santa Fe, 311 F.3d at 1035 *859 (setting forth exception to general rule that district court only considers facts alleged in complaint when addressing motion to dismiss).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hale O Kaula Church v. Maui Planning Commission
See Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir.1999) (recognizing that absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either constitutional or statutory violations) (citing Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 268 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
LaTulippe v. Oregon Medical Board
Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 923–24 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 , 1007–09 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding that absolute immunity applies to “acts occurring during the disciplinary hearing process,” including initiating a complaint, adjudicating that complaint, and imposing disciplinary sanctions).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Haworth v. City of Walla Walla
Garmon, 828 F.3d 17 at 845 ; see also Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 Because Nagle’s immunity extends to the same degree as Morales’s 19 immunity, it would follow that Nagle is similarly not absolutely immune from a 20 Section 1983 claim regarding Morales’ sworn affidavit in support of the July 20, 1 2018 search warrant.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ralph Read v. Kathleen Haley
The district court properly applied Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), and Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 1999), in determining that the Board members’ functions were sufficiently analogous to those of a judge or prosecutor. 2 See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922-29 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that members of Idaho State Board of Medicine, their staff, and their counsel were entitled to absolute immunity under Butz and Mishler); see also Mishler, 191 F.3d at 1009 (concluding that members of Nevada medical board were entitled to …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hall v. Witteman
See, e.g., Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir.1999) (“[f]iling charges and initiating prosecution are functions that are integral to a prosecutor’s work”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Lee Beck, Md, Dmd v. Texas State Board Of Dental Examiners
See O'Neal, 113 F.3d at 66 ("Procedural safeguards such as the right to counsel, adequate notice of a hearing, and the opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses are all readily available to any person charged by the board."); Bettencourt v. Board of Registration in Medicine of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 904 F.2d 772, 783 (1st Cir. 1990)(representation by counsel, written opinions, and the ability to introduce oral and documentary evidence "indicate that enough checks on malicious action by Board members exist to warrant a grant of absolute immunity for the Board members'action…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Beck v. Texas State Board of Dental Examiners
See O’Neal, 113 F.3d at 66 (“Procedural safeguards such as the right to counsel, adequate notice of a hearing, and the opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses are all readily available to any person charged by the board.”); Bettencourt v. Board of Registration in Medicine of the Commonwealth, of Massachusetts, 904 F.2d 772, 783 (1st Cir.1990)(representation by counsel, written opinions, and the ability to introduce oral and documentary evidence “indicate that enough checks on malicious action by Board members exist to warrant a grant of absolute immunity for the Board member…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dunham v. Wadley
See, e.g., Wang v. New Hampshire Board of Registration in Medicine, 55 F.3d 698, 701 (1st Cir. 1995), and Horwitz v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 822 F.2d 1508, 1515 (10th Cir. 1987); see also Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 . 1004-05, 1008-09 (9th Cir.1999). 18 We agree with the reasoning of these cases, and we note, furthermore, that Dr. Dunham produced no evidence showing that the defendants acted in non-judicial or non-prosecutorial capacities, or that they acted in "complete absence of all jurisdiction," Duty v. City of Springdale, Arkansas, 42 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curia…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sandra K. Dunham v. George Wadley
See, e.g., Wang v. New Hampshire Board of Registration in Medicine, 55 F.3d 698, 701 (1st Cir.1995), and Horwitz v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 822 F.2d 1508, 1515 (10th Cir.1987); see also Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998, 1004-05, 1008-09 (9th Cir.1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre
v.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
v.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
96-70267.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 26, 1999.
Published
191 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 1999)
JUAN ANIBAL AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 96-70267
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Filed October 26, 1999
IN&S No. Ast-ddn-btm
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
Before: Harry Pregerson, John T. Noonan, and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
1
The petition for review is denied. INS v. Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 119 S. Ct. 1429, 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999)