Sloman

Sloman v. Tadlock

Bad Law
21 F.3d 1462·1994 WL 124618
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 14, 1994Nos. 92-55597, 92-55692 and 92-55851California7,087 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Opinion by Judge FLETCHER.

OPINION

The City of Simi Valley and Herman Hale, a Simi Valley Police Officer, appeal a judgment based on jury verdicts denying Hale qualified immunity and imposing liability on both Hale and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the First Amendment rights of Edward Sloman. Hale and the City challenge the verdicts, the submission of the qualified immunity determination to the jury, and a number of jury instructions and evi-dentiary rulings. Sloman cross-appeals the amount of the attorneys’ fees award, the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Phillip Tadlock and David Allen, and the summary judgment finding that the Ventura County District Attorney’s office exercised independent judgment in charging Sloman with criminal trespass.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm the denial of qualified immunity for Officer Hale, as well as the imposition of § 1983 liability against him, but reverse the imposition of § 1983 liability against the City. We also reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Tadlock. We affirm on all other issues presented in the appeal and cross-appeal.

BACKGROUND

Edward Sloman was one…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.