Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> California Appellate Report
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Federal Judiciary
: California Appellate ReportMattos v. Agarano (9th Cir. - Oct. 4, 2010)
By Shaun Martin
ADVERTISEMENTS
It's a straightforward "Why'd you tase me, bro?" case that the Ninth Circuit resolved back in January. It's a per curiam opinion holding that the officers had qualified immunity. No dissent. Fact-specific. No way it's getting taken en banc, right?We'll see who gets drawn on this one. We probably know one vote -- Chief Judge Kozinski's -- already, since he was on the panel. The other two were Judges Bybee and Callahan. Apparently the views of those three with respect to when it's okay to tase someone may not be entirely representative of the Ninth Circuit as a whole.
Who knew?
Full post as published by California Appellate Report on October 04, 2010 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

CA9: Use of Taser during domestic disturbance call was reasonable
Dica de palestra: Atendimento ao cliente
Information acquired from a stop cannot retroactively justify it
The Truth Behind 'Natural' Chicken
SCOKY MONTHLY CASE SUMMARY REPORT: August 2010
IRS Relaxes Uncertain Tax Position Rules








