Legal Opinion
Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 4, 2002No. 01-15007PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
On March 23, 2000, the District Attorney for the County of Inyo (“District Attorney”) and the Sheriff for the County of Inyo (“Sheriff’) obtained and executed a warrant to search Bishop Paiute Gaming Corporation (“Corporation”) employee records held in the possession and control of the Bishop Paiute Tribe (“Tribe”) in Bishop, California, as part of a welfare fraud investigation. The Tribe and the Corporation brought suit against the County of Inyo (“County”), the District Attorney, and the Sheriff (collectively “Defendants”) under federal and state law seeking…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Malley v. BriggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Hafer v. MeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Buckley v. FitzsimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Narragansett Indian v. State of Rhode IslanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
- Womack v. County of AmadorDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2008
- Krl, a California General Partnership Roland Womack Nadine Womack Larry Dwight Womack Luke Womack Renee Womack v. Russell Moore David J. Irey Amador County State of California, and Todd D. Riebe Ron Hall, Krl, a California General Partnership Roland Womack Nadine Womack Larry Dwight Womack Luke Womack Renee Womack v. Russell Moore Todd D. Riebe Ron Hall Amador County State of California, and David J. IreyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Venegas v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Narragansett Indian v. State of Rhode IslanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005