Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wood v. Emmersongreen2 sentences2015Standard of Review “The issue of whether qualified immunity exists is ultimately one of law for the trial court. [Citation.] Disputes of historical fact relevant to the issue, however, must be decided by a jury. [Citations.]” (Wood v. Emmerson (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1515 .) 3. 2015Standard of Review “The issue of whether qualified immunity exists is ultimately one of law for the trial court. [Citation.] Disputes of historical fact relevant to the issue, however, must be 90 decided by a jury. [Citations.]” (Wood v. Emmerson (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1515 .) 3. | 1 | 4 |
Donald Saucier v. Elliot M. Katz and in Defense of Animalsred1 sentence2014This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad, general proposition . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Mendoza v. City of West Covina (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 702, 711 , fn. omitted; see Tolan v. Cotton (2014) ___ U.S. ___, ___ [ 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1865-1866 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 ].)8 “The issue of whether qualified immunity exists is ultimately one of law for the trial court. [Citation.] Disputes of historical fact relevant to the issue, however, must be decided by a jury.” (Wood v. Emmerson (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1515 .) Considering “the s | 1 | 1 |
Tolan v. Cottongreen2 sentences2014This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad, general proposition . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Mendoza v. City of West Covina (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 702, 711 , fn. omitted; see Tolan v. Cotton (2014) ___ U.S. ___, ___ [ 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1865-1866 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 ].)8 “The issue of whether qualified immunity exists is ultimately one of law for the trial court. [Citation.] Disputes of historical fact relevant to the issue, however, must be decided by a jury.” (Wood v. Emmerson (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1515 .) Considering “the s 2014This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad, general proposition . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Mendoza v. City of West Covina (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 702, 711 , fn. omitted; see Tolan v. Cotton (2014) ___ U.S. ___, ___ [ 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1865-1866 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 ].)8 “The issue of whether qualified immunity exists is ultimately one of law for the trial court. [Citation.] Disputes of historical fact relevant to the issue, however, must be decided by a jury.” (Wood v. Emmerson (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1515 .) Considering “the s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mendoza v. City of West Covina
green
1 sentence2014This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad, general proposition . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Mendoza v. City of West Covina (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 702, 711 , fn. omitted; see Tolan v. Cotton (2014) ___ U.S. ___, ___ [ 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1865-1866 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 ].)8 “The issue of whether qualified immunity exists is ultimately one of law for the trial court. [Citation.] Disputes of historical fact relevant to the issue, however, must be decided by a jury.” (Wood v. Emmerson (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1515 .) Considering “the s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Patricia Finnegan v. Richard Fountain
green
1 sentence2007(Finnegan v. Fountain (2d Cir. 1990) 915 F.2d 817, 821 .) Disputes of historical fact relevant to the issue, however, must be decided by a jury. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Harman v. Pollock
green
1 sentence2007(Malley v. Briggs, supra, 475 U.S. at pp. 344-346.) As the court stated in Malley : “Only where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable [citation] will the shield of immunity be lost.” (Id. at pp. 344-345.) “Thus, qualified immunity leaves ‘ample room for mistaken judgments,’ [citation] and protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ [Citation.]” (Harman v. Pollock (10th Cir. 2006) 446 F.3d 1069, 1077 .) The issue of whether qualified immunity exists is ultimately one of | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.