Legal Opinion
Santana v. City of Tulsa
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided February 25, 2004No. 03-5056PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.
When plaintiff Eddie Santana failed to respond properly to a notice to abate nuisance, the City of Tulsa removed and discarded used computer parts and other items from Mr. Santana’s backyard. Mr. Santana filed a complaint, alleging that the City should be held liable in the amount of $3,000 for various constitutional violations and for negligent enforcement of its nuisance ordinances. Later, he challenged the constitutionality of Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(4), a provision of the Oklahoma Governmental Torts and Claims Act that exempts a state political subdivision from…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- United States v. JacobsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- New Jersey v. T. L. O.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
- David Shoemaker v. City of HowellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
- The Keene Group, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
- Rolls-Royce Corp. v. Heros, Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 2008
- Rosette, Inc. v. United States of Department of the InteriorNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2007
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.