Legal Opinion

McKenzie v. City of Milpitas

District Court, N.D. California

Decided May 21, 1990No. C-88-20718 RPAPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMENDED ORDER FOR PUBLICATION

AGUILAR, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants, the City of Milpitas (“the City”) and Milpitas Police Chief Frank Acosta (“Chief Acosta”) bring this motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, for summary judgment, based on their allegations that plaintiffs have not stated actionable claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and that the evidence demonstrates that neither the City nor Chief Acosta violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. City police officers were dispatched to plaintiffs’ residence following a citizen’s report of a possible domestic disturbance. A…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. City of Canton v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wiggins v. Rhode IslandDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 2004
  2. Canatella v. StovitzDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2005
  3. Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024
  4. Harden v. CollinsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  5. John Lynch v. Gary ChristiansenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API