green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
19.2 score
“the videotape evidence here appears to raise more questions than it answers . . . .”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
William LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich.
the videotape evidence here appears to raise more questions than it answers . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council v. Norton
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam))] See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Leo Deorle v. Greg Rutherford, Butte County Deputy Sheriff Mick Grey, Butte County Sheriff County of Butte
(14×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Such force is much greater than that applied through the use of pepper spray, see Headwaters Forest, 211 F.3d at 1138, or a painful compliance hold, see Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1994) (police force's "pain compliance unit" dispersed demonstrators using "Orcutt Police Nonchakus" -two sticks of wood connected at one end by a cord -or using wrist-and arm-twisting and pressure point holds), and more likely to cause a life-threatening injury than most dog bites.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Clavette v. Sweeney
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1133 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted; emphasis and brackets added by Headwaters court).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gelow v. Central Pacific Mortgage Corp.
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); see also Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121 , 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Glow v. Union Pacific Railroad
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); see also Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121 , 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Riley v. Giguiere
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); see also Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121 , 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
L.H. v. Schwarzenegger
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); See also Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121 , 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Denney v. Drug Enforcement Administration
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); see also Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121 , 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilson v. Haria and Gogri Corp.
See also Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121 , 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kapusta v. Gale Corp.
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilson v. Pier 1 Imports (US), Inc.
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing *1063 party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Caravel/Woodwind Charters, Inc. v. Tahoe Keys Marina, LLC
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Velente-Hook v. Eastern Plumas Health Care
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hubbard v. Twin Oaks Health & Rehabilitation Center
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Patterson
The evidence of the opposing party-is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)(per curiam)); See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mayweathers v. Terhune
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Capizzi v. County of Placer
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam )); See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Streit v. County of Los Angeles
See, e.g., Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121 , 1126 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000); LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir.2000); Henry v. County of Shasta, 132 F.3d 512, 517-23 (9th Cir.1997); Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714-15 (9th Cir.1995); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1481-82 (9th Cir.1993); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1447 (9th Cir.1991); Merritt v. County of Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765, 770-71 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Valerie Streit, Individually and as Class Representative Diego Santillana, Individually and as Class Representative Michael Roerich, Individually v. County of Los Angeles, a Governmental Entity Jerry Harper, Undersheriff Michael Graham, Assistant Sheriff Barry King, Chief Bob Pash, Chief Daniel Burt, Commander, Eddie Shields, Individually and as a Class Representative v. County of Los Angeles, a Governmental Entity Jerry Harper, Undersheriff Michael Graham, Assistant Sheriff Barry King, Chief Bob Pash, Chief Daniel Burt, Commander, Randall Cleaves, Individually and as Class Representative Alfred Carrillo, Individually and as Class Representative v. County of Los Angeles, a Governmental Entity Jerry Harper, Undersheriff Michael Graham, Assistant Sheriff Barry King, Chief Bob Pash, Chief Daniel Burt, Commander, Munique Williams Michael E. White April Marie Courie Eric Mitchell Dianeramirez, Individually, and as Class Representative Heather Yousif, Individually, and as Class Representative Margo v. Borrup, Individually, and as Class Representative Quinton Cooper Ruby Sellars v. Sherman Block, Sheriff, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Leellen Patchen, Individually and as Class Representative Steven Gray, Individually and as Class Representative Isaac Tchakmakjian, Individually and as Class Representative v. County of Los Angeles, a Governmental Entity Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Michael E. White April Marie Courie Eric Mitchell Diane Ramirez, Individually and as Class Representative Heather Yousif, Individually and as Class Representative Margo v. Borrup, Individually and as Class Representative Quinton Cooper Ruby Sellars Leellen Patchen, Individually and as Class Representative Steven Gray, Individually and as Class Representative Isaac Chakmakjian, Individually and as Class Representative Eddie Shields, Individually and as Class Representative Diego Santillana, Individually and as Class Representative Michael Roerich, Individually Randall Cleaves, Individually and as Class Representative v. Sherman Nmi Block, Sheriff, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and County of Los Angeles, a Governmental Entity Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, as Doe 1, Samuel Gladney v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Estate of Sherman Block Jerry Harper Michael Graham Robert Mann Barry King Daniel Burt, Munique Williams Michael E. White April Marie Courie Eric Mitchell Diane Ramirez, Individually, and as Class Representative Margo v. Borrup, Individually, and as Class Representative Quinton Cooper Ruby Sellars, and Johnny Ray Tolbert Kevin Baxter, Individually and as Class Representatives and in Their Capacities as Taxpayers Joseph Whitner, Individually, and as Class Representative Yolanda Corbert, Individually, and as Class Representative Cassondra McNair Individually, and as Class Representative Ronald J. Borrup, Individually, and as Class Representative Kirk Douglas Julian Valdez Frank Lopez Joe Sanchez, Jr. Moises Carranza Hamid Shahian Herman Wyche Duc Huu Pham
See, e.g., Headwater Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121 , 1126 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000); LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 961 (9th Cir. 2000); Henry v. County of Shasta, 132 F.3d 512, 517-23 (9th Cir. 1997); Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714-15 (9th Cir. 1995); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1481-82 (9th Cir. 1993); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1447 (9th Cir. 1991); Merritt v. County of Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater
The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn *1026 from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam)); See also Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 211 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Headwaters Forest Defense, and Molly Burton Vernell \Spring\" M. Lundberg Michael McCurdy Eric Samuel Neuwirth Maya Portugal Lisa Marie Sandersonno. Fox Jennifer Schneider Terri Slanetz Noel Tendick
v.
The County of Humboldt
v.
The County of Humboldt
May 4, 2000.
a Political Division of the State of California Eureka Police Dept Bill Honsal
Captain James Manos
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1) · Ninth Circuit (1)
211 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2000)
HEADWATERS FOREST DEFENSE, PLAINTIFF, AND MOLLY BURTON; VERNELL "SPRING" M. LUNDBERG; MICHAEL MCCURDY; ERIC SAMUEL NEUWIRTH; MAYA PORTUGAL; LISA MARIE SANDERSONNO. FOX; JENNIFER SCHNEIDER; TERRI SLANETZ; NOEL TENDICK, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; DENNIS LEWIS, SHERIFF; GARY PHILP, CHIEF DEPUTY; MARVIN KIRKPATRICK, DEPUTY; JOHN SYLVIA, DEPUTY; CIARBELLINI, SGT.; CITY OF EUREKA, A POLITICAL DIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EUREKA POLICE DEPT; BILL HONSAL, CAPTAIN; JAMES MANOS, SGT., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
98-17250
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued and Submitted December 6, 1999
May 4, 2000
1
NOTE: SEE AMENDED OPINION AT 240 F.3d 1185.