Legal Opinion
Cooper v. Dupnik
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 6, 1991No. Nos. 88-15661, 88-15685PublishedCited by 74 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:
Appellants Dupnik, Taylor and Barkman, from the Pima County Sheriffs Department, and appellants Ronstadt and Wright, from the Tucson Police Department, join in this consolidated appeal of the district court’s denial of their motions for summary judgment based upon the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. The district judge had denied summary judgment on this ground after appellee Cooper brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and pendent state claims for police misconduct surrounding his arrest.
The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §…
2Cases cited56 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- City of Canton v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by74 opinions
- Hart v. ParksCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Dee v. Borough of DunmoreCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
- 71 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 584, 68 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,170, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5069, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8191 Robert T. Ortez, Sr. v. Washington County, State of Oregon John Junkin, County Attorney Michelle Barrerr, County Attorney Charles Cameron, County Administrator and Susan Wilson, County SupervisorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Cooper v. DupnikCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Buckey v. County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.