26 Cited authorities

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 28,850 times 142 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
457 U.S. 800 (1982) Cited 32,036 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.
528 U.S. 167 (2000) Cited 7,386 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing
Los Angeles v. Lyons
461 U.S. 95 (1983) Cited 7,709 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold
O'Shea v. Littleton
414 U.S. 488 (1974) Cited 4,193 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects"
Jones v. Blanas
393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,896 times
Holding for the first time that an SVP detainee "is entitled to conditions of confinement that are not punitive"
Wood v. Strickland
420 U.S. 308 (1975) Cited 1,846 times
Holding that an official's actions are not justified if the official ignores or disregards "settled, indisputable law"
United Investors Life Ins. v. Waddell Reed
360 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,054 times
Holding that “the district court had a duty to establish subject[-]matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”
Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica
450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 296 times
Holding that amendments to city ordinances had rendered facial challenges to those ordinances moot
Doremus v. Board of Education
342 U.S. 429 (1952) Cited 347 times
Holding that municipal taxpayers do not have standing because "[t]here is no allegation that this [government-sponsored] activity is supported by any separate tax or paid for from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the cost of conducting the school"
Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 Cited 50,778 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
Fed. R. Evid. 201 Cited 29,372 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."
Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 803 Cited 12,938 times 85 Legal Analyses
Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities
Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 701 Cited 5,878 times 27 Legal Analyses
Governing testimony of lay witnesses
Rule 804 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 804 Cited 4,036 times 32 Legal Analyses
Recognizing an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule when the party against whom the statement is offered has engaged in wrongdoing which procures the unavailability of the declarant
Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 802 Cited 3,964 times 12 Legal Analyses
Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay
Rule 104 - Preliminary Questions
Fed. R. Evid. 104 Cited 3,400 times 13 Legal Analyses
Noting that, in making preliminary determinations relevant to admissibility, "the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege"
Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
Fed. R. Evid. 704 Cited 3,131 times 21 Legal Analyses
Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."
Section 335.1 - Assault, battery or injury or death caused by wrongful act or negligence
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 Cited 2,342 times 6 Legal Analyses
Imposing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims
Rule 805 - Hearsay Within Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 805 Cited 901 times 4 Legal Analyses
Allowing hearsay within hearsay only "if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule"

Brandi Garris et al v. City of Los Angeles

26 Cited authorities

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"

Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing

Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold

Holding that "[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects"

Holding for the first time that an SVP detainee "is entitled to conditions of confinement that are not punitive"

Holding that an official's actions are not justified if the official ignores or disregards "settled, indisputable law"

Holding that “the district court had a duty to establish subject[-]matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”

Holding that amendments to city ordinances had rendered facial challenges to those ordinances moot

Holding that municipal taxpayers do not have standing because "[t]here is no allegation that this [government-sponsored] activity is supported by any separate tax or paid for from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the cost of conducting the school"

Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

Governing testimony of lay witnesses

Recognizing an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule when the party against whom the statement is offered has engaged in wrongdoing which procures the unavailability of the declarant

Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay

Noting that, in making preliminary determinations relevant to admissibility, "the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege"

Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."

Imposing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims

Allowing hearsay within hearsay only "if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule"