Legal Opinion
Conner v. Heiman
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 9, 2012No. 10-17545PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RAKOFF, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiff-Appellee William H. Conner sues Steve Heiman and Russ Neil, two Nevada Gaming Control Board agents, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Conner claims that Heiman and Neil violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by arresting him without probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime. Conner also alleges that Heiman and Neil conspired with Harrah’s Operating Company (“Harrah’s”) to violate his rights. On October 20, 2010, the district court denied Heiman’s and Neil’s motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. Heiman…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Pearson v. CallahanSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Hunter v. BryantSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Johnson v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- George v. MorrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Zalaski v. City of HartfordCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
- Kass v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2017
- Grenning v. KlemmeDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2014
- Michelle Cameron v. Michelle CraigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.