Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Keiko Larez, and v. William Holcomb, and Cross-Appellee

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 22, 1994No. 91-55822, 91-56145, 91-56283 and 91-56284Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLeavy, Circuit Judge

I concur in most of Judge Nelson’s opinion, and specifically agree with her that the district court erred by informing the jury that the city would pay any compensatory and punitive damages that might be awarded. However, I would reverse on both liability and damages.

With respect to the first point, I believe that the instruction given on the issue of the plaintiffs consent to arrest was erroneous for at least two reasons: First, and as already noted by Judge Nelson, it placed the burden of proof on the “government,” which was not even a party to this case; and second, it required the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. WilkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  2. People v. TrudellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  3. People v. VillaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API