Housden v. United States

21 F. App'x 671
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 24, 2001·No. No. 00-35350; D.C. No. CV-99-00059-AAM·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir.2001). Ms. Housden did not present evidence sufficient to raise [672] an issue of material fact regarding the existence of or the government’s knowledge of a dangerous condition. Kangley v. United States, 788 F.3d 533, 534 (9th Cir.1986); Brant v. Market Basket Stores, 72 Wash.2d 446, 433 P.2d 863, 867 (Wash.1967); Merrick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 67 Wash.2d 426, 407 P.2d 960, 962 (Wash.1965). Nor did she present any evidence that the government failed to impose safeguards or issue warnings “reasonably necessary for [her] protection under the circumstances.” Iwai v. State, 129 Wash.2d 84, 915 P.2d 1089, 1094 (Wash.1996). The district court judgment is

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Housden v. United States, 21 F. App'x 671 (9th Cir. 2001).

21 F. App'x 671 (Housden v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Merrick v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
407 P.2d 960 (Washington Supreme Court, 1965)
Iwai v. State
915 P.2d 1089 (Washington Supreme Court, 1996)
Brant v. Market Basket Stores, Inc.
433 P.2d 863 (Washington Supreme Court, 1967)
Babacar Gaye v. Loretta E. Lynch
788 F.3d 519 (Sixth Circuit, 2015)
Iwai v. State
129 Wash. 2d 84 (Washington Supreme Court, 1996)