Legal Opinion
Daniel Skoog v. County of Clackamas Mark Fresh, and Herbert Royster, Daniel Skoog v. County of Clackamas Mark Fresh Herbert Royster, Daniel Skoog v. County of Clackamas, and Mark Fresh Herbert Royster
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided November 20, 2006No. 04-35087Published
1Opinion of the Court
469 F.3d 1221
Daniel SKOOG, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS; Mark Fresh, Defendants, and
Herbert Royster, Defendant-Appellant.
Daniel Skoog, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
County of Clackamas; Mark Fresh; Herbert Royster, Defendants-Appellees.
Daniel Skoog, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
County of Clackamas, Defendant-Appellee, and
Mark Fresh; Herbert Royster, Defendants.
No. 04-35087.
No. 04-35286.
No. 04-35568.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2006.
Filed November 20, 2006.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Montomery W. Cobb, Cobb & Bosse, LLP, Portland, OR, for…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Crawford-El v. BrittonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Hartman v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Anthony C. Greene v. Jack Barber, Edward Hillyer, Victor Gillis, William Hegarty, and the City of Grand Rapids, MichiganCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.