Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich

Good Law
92 F.3d 831·1996 WL 438936·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19499·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5837
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 6, 1996Nos. 94-56766, 95-55284California6,034 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wallace, J.

Donald Van Ort and his grandmother, Helen (the Van Orts), appeal from the district court’s judgment reversing a jury verdict in their favor. The Van Orts also appeal from the district court’s judgment against them on their state law negligence claims.

The Estate of Stanewich (Estate) joins in the Van Orts’ appeal of the district court’s rulings on the federal civil rights and state law negligence claims.. It separately appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion to limit the Van Orts’ claims to the insurance policy coverage.

The district court ha'd jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1343, and 1367. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for entry of an amended judgment.

I

San Diego County Sheriffs Deputy Michael Stanewich served as an area detective stationed at the San Diego Sheriffs Encini-tas substation. His duties included undercover narcotics investigation.

On May 30, 1991, Stanewich and other officers conducted a narcotics search of the Van Orts’ Encinitas residence. The officers found no contraband or illegal drugs, and the search resulted in no criminal prosecutions.…

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.