Legal Opinion
Trigalet v. City of Tulsa
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided February 7, 2001No. 98-5261PublishedCited by 78 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
This interlocutory appeal is before us on our grant of review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 1 Specifically, the following controlling question of law was certified to this court:
whether, under the rationale of Williams v. City & County of Denver, 99 F.3d 1009 (10th Cir.1996), [op. vacated, 140 F.3d 855 (10th Cir.1997), and j. vacated & case remanded, 1998 WL 380518 (10th Cir. June 26, 1998) ], a municipality can be held liable if the City’s actions can be characterized as arbitrary, or conscience-shocking, in a constitutional sense, even if there are no unconstitutional acts…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- County of Sacramento v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Collins v. City of Harker HeightsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- City of Los Angeles v. HellerSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Scott v. HenrichCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- Martinez v. BeggsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Jennings v. City of StillwaterCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
- Crowson v. Washington County State, UtahCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
- Roger D. Speer v. City of Wynne, Arkansas, Roger D. Speer v. Danny Glover, Individually and as Deputy Prosecuting AttorneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002
- Hinkle v. Beckham County Board of CountyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.