Sheehan v. City of San Francisco

Ninth Circuit

Sheehan v. City of San Francisco

793 F.3d 1009, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12096, 2015 WL 4241392

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 2015

DocketNo. 11-16401

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 793 F.3d 1009 (Sheehan v. City of San Francisco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheehan v. City of San Francisco, 793 F.3d 1009, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12096, 2015 WL 4241392 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

In our previous opinion, Sheehan v. City & County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir.2014), we affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the district court. In City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015), the Supreme Court reversed our judgment in part and remanded to this court for further proceedings. Under these decisions, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on Shee-han’s Fourth Amendment claims but, as explained in Parts III and IV of our previous opinion, erred by granting- summary judgment to the defendants on Sheehan’s Americans with Disabilities Act and state law claims. We therefore affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of the district court and remand to the district court for further proceedings. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

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

ORDER

In our previous opinion, Sheehan v. City & County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir.2014), we affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the district court. In City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015), the Supreme Court reversed our judgment in part and remanded to this court for further proceedings. Under these decisions, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on Shee-han’s Fourth Amendment claims but, as explained in Parts III and IV of our previous opinion, erred by granting- summary judgment to the defendants on Sheehan’s Americans with Disabilities Act and state law claims. We therefore affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of the district court and remand to the district court for further proceedings. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

793 F.3d 1009, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12096, 2015 WL 4241392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-city-of-san-francisco-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack