Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

Teresa SHEEHAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation; Heather Fong, in her capacity as Chief of Police for the City and County of San Francisco; Kimberly Reynolds, indi

John L. Burris, Esquire, Ayana Alyce Cuevas–Curry, The Law Offices of John L. Burris, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellant. Peter Julian Keith, Deputy City, San Francisco City Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants–Appellees.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. D.C. No. 3:09–cv–03889–CRB.
Before: JOHN T. NOONAN, SUSAN P. GRABER and RAYMOND C. FISHER, Circuit Judges.


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 Sheehan'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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Sheehan v. City of S.F.
(Jul 14, 2015)