Hyland v. Wonder, 127 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Hyland v. Wonder, 127 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“der california law, a city's charter determines 27 municipal affairs such as personnel matters.”
20 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Avenmarg v. Humboldt County (cand, 2020-08-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Avenmarg v. Humboldt County
N.D. Cal. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
der california law, a city's charter determines 27 municipal affairs such as personnel matters.
discussed Cited "see" (PS) Gunn v. County of Butte
E.D. Cal. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hyland v. Sonder, 117 F.3d 405 , 413 25 (9th Cir. 1997), amended 127 F.3d 1135 (Superior Court); Franceshi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828 , 26 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (Municipal Court). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 The Court also identifies flaws in the first claim not argued by the County 2 Defendants in their motion.
cited Cited "see, e.g." (PS) Conerly v. Davenport
E.D. Cal. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12 ; see also Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405 , 413 n.1 (9th 17 Cir. 1997), as amended 127 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1997).
cited Cited "see, e.g." (PS) Conerly v. Superior Court of California County of Sacramento
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 11-12 ; see also Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405 , 413 n. 1 (9th Cir.1997), as 24 amended 127 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lanric Hyland
v.
Roy L. Wonder, Supervising Judge, Juvenile Court, Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Individually and in His Official Capacity Daniel M. Hanlon, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Individually and in His Official Capacity Dennis Sweeney, Chief Probation Officer, San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department, Individually and in His Official Capacity Fred Jordan, Chief Probation Officer, San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department, Individually and in His Official Capacity Stephen La Plante, Director, Juvenile Hall, Individually and in His Official Capacity
95-15533.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 6, 1997.
127 F.3d 1135
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 79%
Citer courts: N.D. California (1)

127 F.3d 1135

97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,639

Lanric HYLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Roy L. WONDER, Supervising Judge, Juvenile Court, Superior
Court of the City and County of San Francisco, individually
and in his official capacity; Daniel M. Hanlon, Presiding
Judge, Superior Court of the City and County of San
Francisco, individually and in his official capacity;
Dennis Sweeney, Chief Probation Officer, San Francisco
Juvenile Probation Department, individually and in his
official capacity; Fred Jordan, Chief Probation Officer,
San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department, individually
and in his official capacity; Stephen La Plante, Director,
Juvenile Hall, individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-15533.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 6, 1997.

Prior report: 117 F.3d 405.

Before: SNEED, BOOCHEVER, AND THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

1

The opinion in the above-entitled case, filed June 25, 1997, is amended as follows:

2

At Slip op. pg. 7353 [117 F.3d at 411, left column, second full paragraph], at the end of the paragraph numbered , change the "." to a "," and add "and the Navy officer had qualified immunity." Delete the following sentence at the start of the next paragraph, "That analysis applies here."

3

At Slip op. pg. 7355 [117 F.3d at 412, left column, second full paragraph], on the second line of the runover paragraph, change the words "found a First Amendment violation on" to "applied a first amendment analysis to."

4

With the opinion thus amended, the panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Thompson has voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judges Sneed and Boochever so recommend. The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed.R.App. 35.

5

The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED.