Oliver v. City of Anaheim
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
490 F. App’x. 890 (2012)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Police officers (defendants) employed with the City of Anaheim (city) (defendant) arrested Lorenzo Oliver and his son, C.J. Oliver (plaintiffs) for violating California’s animal-anticruelty statute. The statute prohibited the intentional and malicious killing or wounding of an animal. The officers alleged that the Olivers had violated the statute by attempting to kill an opossum with a shovel. The Olivers were not convicted under the statute because the California Penal Code provided that the animal-anticruelty statute was not intended to prohibit the killing of an animal known to be dangerous to life, limb, or property. A California regulation that had been previously promulgated identified opossums as dangerous. Additionally, the method that the Olivers had used to try to kill the opossum was not prohibited by the statute. The Olivers then sued the officers and the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Olivers claimed that their rights had been violated because the officers had no probable cause for the arrests. The city and officers claimed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity as city officials. The district court returned a verdict in favor of the city and officers. The matter was appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, Reinhardt, C.J.,J.)
Dissent (Watford, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
