Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,600+ case briefs...

Hernandez v. City of Pomona

California Supreme Court
207 P.3d 506 (2009)


Police officers (defendants) observed George Hernandez driving a vehicle before dawn with its headlights off. A police officer requested Hernandez to get out of the vehicle, and Hernandez drove away. The officers engaged in a high-speed pursuit, which resulted in Hernandez crashing. Hernandez then attempted to run from the police officers, and a police dog began attacking him. Hernandez reached towards his waistband and yelled either “I got a gun” or “gun.” The police officers fired 37 shots at Hernandez, hitting him 22 times and killing him. Hernandez was unarmed. Hernandez’s parents and children (plaintiffs) sued the officers and the City of Pomona (defendant) in federal court. The family alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and asserted a claim for wrongful death under California law. The federal court bifurcated the federal and state claims and held a trial on the federal claims. The jury was given instructions on the claims, including an instruction to consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether excessive force was used. The jury returned a verdict for three of the four officers. The trial court then granted judgment as a matter of law to the fourth officer. The trial court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. The family then filed a lawsuit in California state court asserting the state law claims against the same defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or a demurrer, alleging that the claims were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The trial court granted the motion, and the family appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the family could pursue a theory that the defendants negligently created a situation in which deadly force was reasonable. The California Supreme Court granted review.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 458,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 458,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial