green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
42.6 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2007 ·
…once the plaintiff has proven the elements of the tort, the defendant has the burden to establish that the detention or arrest was legally justified.
at p. 430
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Tekle v. United States
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
once the plaintiff has proven the elements of the tort, the defendant has the burden to establish that the detention or arrest was legally justified.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Tekle Ex Rel. Tekle v. United States
(10×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
once the plaintiff has proven the elements of the tort, the defendant has the burden to establish that the detention or arrest was legally justified.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Welch v. United States
he liability of the united states in the present case will be determined by whether the ins agents complied with the applicable federal standards when they detained .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ramirez v. United States
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Guzman v. Graham Packaging Co., L.P.
Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339 , 343 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rhoden v. 16 United States, 55 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir. 1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Sherrano Stingley v. County of Sacramento
Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339 , 343 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rhoden v. 17 United States, 55 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir. 1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wood v. County of Stanislaus
Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339 , 343 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rhoden v. 22 United States, 55 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alfarag v. United States Postal Service
“In an action 5 under the FTCA, a court must apply the law the state courts would apply in the analogous tort 6 action, including federal law.” Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 Plaintiff contends the United States Postal Service’s negligent handling of Plaintiff’s mail caused 8 her depression and anxiety.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Strawn v. Sokoloff
The tort of false imprisonment consists of the “nonconsensual, intentional 5 confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however 6 short.” Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 430 (9th Cir. 1995); Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 7 Cal.4th 701, 715 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd v. Chad T. Wolf
“The FTCA specifies that the liability of the United States is to be 14 determined ‘in accordance with the law of the place where the [allegedly tortious] act 15 or omission occurred.’” Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 430 (9th Cir. 1995) 16 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick Brotherton v. United States
Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Liranzo v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In doing so, Judge Tashima called into question a line of Ninth Circuit cases relying on Caban II— including Amsberg v. United States, 757 F.2d 971, 978-79 (9th Cir.1985) and Rhoden, 55 F.3d at 430-31.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tekle ex rel. Tekle v. United States
“The FTCA specifies that the liability of the United States is to be determined ‘in accordance with the law of the place where the [allegedly tortious] act or omission oc curred.’ ” Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 430(9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)) (alteration in the original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tekele v. United States
“The FTCA specifies that the liability of the United States is to be determined ‘in accordance with the law of the place where the [allegedly tortious] act or omission occurred.’ ” Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 430 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)) (alter- ation in the original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Araujo v. United States
(2×)
The [district] court reasoned that without such state standards, it could not determine whether Rhoden’s seizure and detention violated California law and therefore Rhoden could not maintain an action against the United States under the FTCA.” Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 430-31 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Humberto Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America Hector Berellez Bill Waters Pete Gruden Jack Lawn Antonio Garate-Bustamante Francisco Sosa, and Five Unnamed Mexican Nationals Currently in the Federal Witness Protection Program, Humberto Alvarez-Machain v. Francisco Sosa, and Five Unnamed Mexican Nationals Currently in the Federal Witness Protection Program
Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rollin Paul Goodman, in His Individual Capacity v. United States
Moreover, "[i]n an action under the FTCA, a court must apply the law the state courts would apply in the analogous tort action, including federal law.” Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keith Wilson, as Conservator for Crystal Wilson a Minor v. United States
Liability of the federal government and its agents is determined "in accordance with the law of the place where the [allegedly tortious] act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) (1994); Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 430 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wold v. Red Lion Inn
Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 431, n. 3 (9th Cir.1995). 7 In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must show two essential elements: (1) that the defendants acted under color of state law; and (2) that the defendants caused the plaintiff to be deprived of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the United States.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Frank Shields, Plaintiff/counter-Defendant/appellant v. Hall-Mark Electronics Corporation, Defendant/counter-Plaintiff/appellee
Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7123, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,695 in Re Daisy Systems Corporation and Daisy/cadnetix, Inc. Bear Stearns and Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Bruce M. Holland Burton J. McMurtry Carl D. Carman F. Gibson Meyers Lutz P. Henckels, Creditors-Appellees v. Daisy Systems Corp., Debtor, and Jack S. Kenney, in His Capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee for Daisy Systems Corporation and Daisy/cadnetix, Inc., Trustee-Appellant
Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stearns & Co. v. Daisy System Corp. (In re Daisy System Corp.)
Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Swanson v. United States Forest Service
Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Swanson v. United States Forest Service
Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Helton v. United States
See. e.g., Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428 , 432 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995) (FTCA action permitted based on conduct violative of Constitution and also constituting false imprisonment under state law); Garcia v. United States, 896 F.Supp. 467, 474-75 (E.D.Pa.1995) (fact that FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for constitutional claims does not bar state common law tort claims under FTCA for strip search); see also Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 19-20, 23 , 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (observing that identical conduct could give rise to both FTCA and Bivens claims). 4 Plaintiffs may …
cited
Cited "see"
Humberto Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America Hector Berellez Bill Waters Pete Gruden Jack Lawn Antonio Garate-Bustamante Francisco Sosa, and Five Unnamed Mexican Nationals Currently in the Federal Witness Protection Program, Humberto Alvarez-Machain v. Francisco Sosa, and Five Unnamed Mexican Nationals Currently in the Federal Witness Protection Program
See Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
See Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Irene Amaya Demorua Araceli Morua-Amaya Brenda Cecilia Morua-Amaya Olga Amaya De Vasquez v. United States
See Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam); see also Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1427-32 (9th Cir.1994). 1.
cited
Cited "see"
Resh v. Connecticut National Bank
See Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428 , 431 n. 3 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Resh v. Connecticut National Bank
See Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428 , 431 n. 3 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. United States
See Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428 , 432 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995) (plaintiff could base FTCA claim on conduct which both violated the Constitution and amounted to false imprisonment under California state law); Birnbaum v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 967, 983-86 (E.D.N.Y. 1977), aff'd on other grounds, 588 F.2d 319 (2d Cir.1978) (constitutional tort action arising out of one of § 2680(h)'s six enumerated torts is viable under the FTCA if sanctioned by the "law of the place"); see also Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 19-20, 23 , 100 S.Ct. 1468, 1471-72, 1474 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (noting that …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Chi. Field Office
No judicial review is guaranteed by the Constitution." Carlson v. Landon , 342 U.S. 524 , 537, 72 S.Ct. 525 , 96 L.Ed. 547 (1952) ; see also Rhoden v. United States , 55 F.3d 428 , 432 n.7 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (distinguishing the "context of a criminal arrest" from civil immigration detentions for Fourth Amendment analysis); INS v. Lopez-Mendoza , 468 U.S. 1032 , 1039, 104 S.Ct. 3479 , 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984) ("Consistent with the civil nature of the proceeding, various protections that apply in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing."); Chavez-Raya v. Immi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chavez Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office
No judicial review is guaranteed by the Constitution.” Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 537 (1952); see also Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428 , 432 n.7 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (distinguishing the “context of a criminal arrest” from civil immigration detentions for Fourth Amendment analysis); INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984) (“Consistent with the civil nature of the proceeding, various protections that apply in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing.”); Chavez-Raya v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 519 F.2d 397, 401 (7th Cir…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
O'Ferrell v. United States
See also Rhoden v. United States, 55 F.3d 428 , 432 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995); Birnbaum v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 967, 983-86 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd, 588 F.2d 319, 329 (2d Cir.1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ray Harold EDWARDS, III, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Ray Harold EDWARDS, III, Defendant-Appellant
93-10058.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 11, 1995.
Alarcon, Leavy, Kleinfeld.
Published
ORDER
In this matter, Ray Harold Edwards, III was indicted, inter alia, for the unlawful possession of firearms in a school zone in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(l)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V.). Edwards filed a motion to dismiss this charge. He argued that section 922(q)(l)(A) was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment. The district court denied the motion. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Edwards entered a plea of guilty to a violation of section 922(q)(l)(A), in exchange for the Government’s promise to seek dismissal of the remaining charge in the indictment, and a reservation of the right to appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss.
In a published opinion, United States v. Edwards, 13 F.3d 291 (9th Cir.1993), this court affirmed, in reliance upon the law of the circuit as set forth in United States v. Evans, 928 F.2d 858 (9th Cir.1991).
On May 1, 1995, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment, and remanded this matter for further consideration in light of United States v. Lopez, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995).
In Lopez, the Court held that section 922(q)(l)(A) violates the Tenth Amendment. Id.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED.