green
Positive treatment
Trending · 86 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 6×
24.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2003 ·
…hether the use of force poses a risk of permanent or significant injury is a factor to be considered in evaluating the need for the force used in a particular case - but it is certainly not dispositive.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…oliee are required to consider what other tactics if any were available to effect the arrest.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Luke Carlson v. City of Redondo Beach
although excessive force cases can be decided as a matter of law, they 7 rarely are because the fourth amendment test for reasonableness is inherently fact- 8 specific.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
De Contreras v. City of Rialto
(2×)
oliee are required to consider what other tactics if any were available to effect the arrest.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Burbank v. Davis
(2×)
hether the use of force poses a risk of permanent or significant injury is a factor to be considered in evaluating the need for the force used in a particular case - but it is certainly not dispositive.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Burbank v. Davis
wjhether the use of force poses a risk of permanent or significant injury is a factor to be considered in evaluating the need for the force used in a particular case - -but it is certainly not dispositive.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bastien v. City of Worcester
whether the use of force poses a risk of permanent or significant injury is a factor to be considered in evaluating the need for the force used in a particular case - but it is certainly not dispositive.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Cir. 2010) (citing Headwaters Forest Def. v. Cnty. of 8 Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) cert. granted, judgment vacated, 534 U.S. 801 9 (2001)). 10 IV.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dominguez v. City Of San Jose
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“A jury's inability to reach a 14 verdict does not necessarily preclude a judgment as a matter of law.” Headwaters Forest Def. v. 15 Cnty. of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1197 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 16 (2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC
“A jury’s inability to reach a 19 verdict does not necessarily preclude a judgment as a matter of law.” Headwaters Forest Def. v. 20 Cty. of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1197 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 21 (2001). 22 B.
discussed
Cited "see"
Alexandra Herrera v. City of Phoenix, et al.
See Headwaters 22 Forest Def. v. Cnty. of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185, 1205 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated and 23 remanded on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 (2001) (force excessive in part because suspects 24 “could not evade arrest by flight”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dibbern v. City of Bakersfield
Accord Headwaters Forest Defense v. Cnty. of 13 Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1197 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 (2001).1 14 In its consideration of a posttrial motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court “should 15 review all of the evidence in the record.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 , 16 150 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fossum v. Lamm
See Heitschmidt v. 10 City of Houston, 161 F.3d 834, 839 (5th Cir. 1998). 11 “Where there is no need for force, any forced used is constitutionally unreasonable.” 12 Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated 13 and remanded on other grounds, County of Humboldt v. Headwaters Forest Def., 534 U.S. 801 , 14 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gonzalez v. Phoenix, City of
See Longoria v. Pinal Cnty., 873 F.3d 699, 708 (9th Cir. 10 2017) (“When a suspect is killed and cannot himself provide an account of what took place, 11 we must examine ‘whether the officers’ accounts are ‘consistent with other known 12 facts.’”). 13 The Ninth Circuit has long held that “where there is no need for force, any force 14 used is constitutionally unreasonable.” See, e.g., Headwaters Forest Def. v. Cnty. of 15 Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir. 2000) (where there is no need for force, any force 16 used is excessive), vacated on other grounds, Cnty. of Humboldt…
discussed
Cited "see"
Sandoval v. City and County of San Francisco
See Headwaters Forest Def. v. Cnty. of Humboldt, 240 1 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir. 2000), judgment vacated on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 (2001). 2 (“[W]here there is no need for force, any force used is constitutionally unreasonable.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tillard v. Strawser
See Wilkins v. City 3 of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[w]here the officers’ entitlement to 4 qualified immunity depends on the resolution of disputed issues of fact in their favor, and 5 against the nonmoving party, summary judgment is not appropriate”). 6 The Ninth Circuit has long held that “where there is no need for force, any force 7 used is constitutionally unreasonable.” Headwaters Forest Def. v. Cnty. of Humboldt, 240 8 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds, Cnty. of 9 Humboldt v. Headwaters Forest Def., 534 U.S. 801 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Mesa, City of
See Headwaters Forest Def. v. Cnty. of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir. 3 2000) (where there is no need for force, any force used is excessive), vacated and remanded 4 on other grounds, Cnty. of Humboldt v. Headwaters Forest Def., 534 U.S. 801 (2001). 5 This factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff for purposes of denying Defendants’ motions 6 summary judgment. 7 3.
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. Alexander
See Headwaters Forest Def. v. 21 Cnty. of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir. 2000) (where there is no need for force, 22 any force used is excessive), vacated and remanded on other grounds, Cnty. of Humboldt 23 v. Headwaters Forest Def., 534 U.S. 801 (2001).
examined
Cited "see"
Lisa Y.S. West v. Deputy Terry Davis
(3×)
See Headwaters Forest Def. v. Cnty. of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1191-95 (9th Cir.2000), vacated for application of new precedent, 534 U.S. 801 , 122 S.Ct. 24 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001), and disposition reinstated on remand, 276 F.3d 1125 . .
discussed
Cited "see"
England v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
(2×)
See Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1196 (9th Cir.2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 , 122 S.Ct. 24 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001); see also Young, 655 F.3d at 1168 . 2.
cited
Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. County of Stanislaus
See id. at 1197 n. 4 (“The fact that the motion was granted after a mistrial was declared because of jury deadlock does not alter the standard to be applied on appeal.”) 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Waters
See Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Six Flags Over Ga., 245 Ga. App. 334, 349 (3) (b) ( 537 SE2d 397 ) (2000), vacated by Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Six Flags Over Ga., 534 U. S. 801 (122 SC 24, 151 LE2d 1) (2001), reinstated with the exception of Division (6) (c), Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Six Flags Over Ga., 254 Ga. App. 598, 599 ( 563 SE2d 178 ) (2002) (referencing trial court’s adoption of special master’s findings and recommendations regarding discovery dispute).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fisher v. City of San Jose
(2×)
See Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1198-1200 (9th Cir.), vacated and remanded, 534 U.S. 801 , 122 S.Ct. 24 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001), aff'd on remand, 276 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir.2002); LaLonde, 204 F.3d at 960-61 .
examined
Cited "see"
Fisher v. City of San Jose
(3×)
See Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1198-1200 (9th Cir.), vacated and remanded, 534 U.S. 801 (2001), aff’d on remand, 276 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2002); LaLonde, 204 F.3d at 960-61.
discussed
Cited "see"
James Tracey Miller v. Clark County Edward J. Bylsma, in His Capacity as a Police Officer for Clark County and as an Individual
(2×)
See Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir.2000) (judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), by County of Humboldt v. Headwaters Forest Defense, 534 U.S. 801 , 122 S.Ct. 24 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001)) (judgment reaffirmed after remand by Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 1125, 1127 (9th Cir.2002)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eloy Mascorro v. The City of National City, Olegario Garcia, Kaitlynn Norie, Sadiq Al-Mosawi, Reynaldo Velazquez, Marc Vargas, Rowdy Pauu, Jane Does 1–2, and John Does 1–2
Cal. 8 Aug. 12, 2024); see also Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 , 828–29 (9th Cir. 2010) 9 (citing Headwaters Forest Def. v. Cnty. of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1204 (9th Cir. 2000), 10 vacated and remanded on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 (2001)) (“While the commission 11 of a misdemeanor offense is not to be taken lightly, it militates against finding the force 12 used to effect an arrest reasonable where the suspect was also nonviolent and posed no 13 threat to the safety of the officers or others.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 14 Plaintiff was suspected of violating California…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Timothy McKibben v. William Knuth
It was clearly established that “[g]ratuitous and completely unnecessary acts of violence by the police during a seizure violate the Fourth Amendment.” Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 880 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 (2001). 3.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryan v. MacPherson
(2×)
See, e.g., Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir.2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds 534 U.S. 801 , 122 S.Ct. 24 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001); [5] Tekle v. United States, 511 F.3d 839, 845 (9th Cir.2007).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryan v. MacPherson
(4×)
See, e.g., Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir.2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds 534 U.S. 801 , 122 S.Ct. 24 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001); [5] Tekle v. United States, 511 F.3d 839, 845 (9th Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryan v. MacPherson
(2×)
See, e.g., Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir.2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds 534 U.S. 801 , 122 S.Ct. 24 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001); 5 Tekle v. United States, 511 F.3d 839, 845 (9th Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryan v. McPherson
(2×)
See, e.g., Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir.2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds 534 U.S. 801 , 122 S.Ct. 24 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001); 5 Tekle v. United States, 511 F.3d 839, 845 (9th Cir.2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carl Bryan v. B. McPherson
See, e.g., Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 , 1199 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated and remanded on other grounds 534 U.S. 801 (2001);5 Tekle v. United States, 511 trical impulse encountered by a taser victim.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James F. Robinson v. Solano County Brian Cauwells, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer Gary Faulkner, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer
(2×)
See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185, 1207 (9th Cir.), vacated by ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 24 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001) (remanding for reconsideration in light of Katz ). 21 The Supreme Court in Katz was also concerned that, by jumping too quickly to the immunity question of whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, the courts might inhibit the development of Fourth Amendment law.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
County of Humboldt
v.
Headwaters Forest Defense
v.
Headwaters Forest Defense
No. 00-1649.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 2001.
Cited by 29 opinions | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194 (2001).