Legal Opinion
Patel v. Penman
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 26, 1996No. 95-55213PublishedCited by 103 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Amrut and Sita Patel appeal the jury verdict against them on their § 1983 claim alleging that the City of San Bernardino violated their procedural due process rights by not affording them notice and an opportunity for a hearing after the City closed down their motel as a nuisance. The Patels also appeal the district court’s summary judgment for the City on their § 1983 claims of alleged violations of substantive due process and equal protection, as well as the district court’s decision declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Albright v. OliverSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Jett v. Dallas Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by103 opinions
- Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Gilbrook v. City of WestminsterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Garrison S. Johnson v. State of California James H. Gomez, Director, Department of Corrections James RowlandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Navellier v. SlettenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Abney v. AlameidaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2004
98 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.