green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roe Ex Rel. Callahan v. Gustine Unified School District
In finding that the case “did not lend itself well to summary adjudication,” Doe A noted that the question of whether an institution acted with deliberate indifference under a particular set of circumstances is a question normally left to the jury. 298 F.Supp.2d at 1036 (citing, e.g., Oviatt By and Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir.1992) (“Whether a local government entity has displayed a policy of deliberate indifference is generally a question for the jury.”)); Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1482 (9th Cir.1991); Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jane Doe A. v. Green
See also Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1367 (9th Cir.1994); Blair v. City of Pomona, 206 F.3d 938 , 2000 WL 290246, *5 (9th Cir.2000); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 681 (9th Cir.2001); and Perrin v. Gentner, 177 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1124 (D.Nev.2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jed Arno Blair
v.
City of Pomona, a Municipal Corp. Charles Heilman, Individually & in His Official Capacity
v.
City of Pomona, a Municipal Corp. Charles Heilman, Individually & in His Official Capacity
98-55548.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 21, 2000.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
206 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2000)
JED ARNO BLAIR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF POMONA, A MUNICIPAL CORP.; CHARLES HEILMAN, INDIVIDUALLY & IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 98-55548
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted November 3, 1999
March 21, 2000
NOTE: SEE AMENDED OPINION AT 223 F.3d 1074