Jellico Coal Mining Co. v. Gothard

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• denying a motion to dismiss a Bane Act 10 claim that was based on a violation of Article I, § 13
• denying a motion to dismiss a Bane Act claim because the “plaintiffs’ Fourth 22 Amendment claims of excessive force and unreasonable search and seizure [we]re 23 sufficient to allege intentional conduct.”
• notice established because plaintiff “told [the deputies] that he could not move 10 his arm behind his back because of a very recent breast-cancer surgery”
• “With 19 respect to hiring and supervision practices, . . . there is no statutory basis under 20 California law for declaring an entity directly liable for negligence.”
• “With respect to hiring and supervision practices, . . . there is no 23 statutory basis under California law for declaring a[] [governmental] entity directly 24 liable for negligence.”
• “Where Fourth 27 Amendment unreasonable seizure or excessive force claims are raised and intentional 28 conduct is at issue, there is no need for a plaintiff to allege a showing of coercion 1 independent from the coercion inherent in the seizure or use of force.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).