Kevin L. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arthur RODERICK, Defendant,
and
Lon T. Horiuchi, Defendant-Appellant.
Kevin L. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arthur RODERICK, Defendant,
Richard Rogers, Defendant-Appellant,
Steve McGavin, Defendant-Appellant,
Les Hazen, Defendant-Appellant,
Dale Carnege, Defendant-Appellant,
William Gore, Defendant-Appellant,
and
Eugene F. Glenn, Defendant-Appellant.
Kevin L. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arthur RODERICK, Defendant,
and
G. Wayne "Duke" Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
Kevin L. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arthur RODERICK, Defendant,
and
Larry Potts, Defendant-Appellant.
Kevin L. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arthur RODERICK, Defendant-Appellant,
Larry Cooper, Defendant-Appellant,
Jose Antonio "Tony" Perez, Defendant-Appellant,
Henry Hudson, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued and Submitted April 7, 1997.
Decided September 25, 1997.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Michael L. Martinez, Holland & Knight, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellant G. Wayne "Duke" Smith.
Charles S. Leeper, Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellants Arthur Roderick, Larry Cooper, Jose Antonio "Tony" Perez, and Henry Hudson.
Kathleen H. Quimby, Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellants Richard Rogers, Steve McGavin, Dale Carnege, William D. Gore, Eugene F. Glenn, and Les Hazen.
Patricia Maher, Shwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silbert, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellant Lon T. Horiuchi.
David Z. Nevin and Ellison Matthews, Nevin, Kofoed & Herzfeld, Boise, Idaho, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK, District Judge.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Kevin Harris brought a Bivens1 action against thirteen named federal law enforcement agents, as well as several unnamed individuals and the United States for their actions at Ruby Ridge, Idaho during two days in August 1992. The individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, in part on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion to dismiss in part, but denied the motion...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
