Irma Jean Perez v. Wayne A. Simmons, James Nalls, Thomas Miller, Marks Meske, and City of Santa Barbara
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Motley v. Parks (9th Cir. 2005)
- Valdez v. McPheters (10th Cir. 1999)
- United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Larry Risse, Appellant/cross-Appellee (8th Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Larry Risse (8th Cir. 1996)
- Gholson v. State of Nevada (District Court, D. Nevada 2020)
- Barajas v. City of Rohnert Park (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2016)
- Motley v. Parks (9th Cir. 2005)
- Anderson v. Long Beach City (9th Cir. 2003)
- Dawn Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department (9th Cir. 2001)
- Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department (9th Cir. 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*776 The opinion filed in this case on August 31, 1989, Perez v. Simmons, 884 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1989), was amended by an order filed April 18, 1990, Perez v. Simmons, 900 F.2d 213 (9th Cir. 1990). A typographical error in that order may lead to confusion as to the sentence to be changed on page 1142 of the original opinion.
Therefore, the order is corrected to read:
Following a petition for rehearing filed by the Government, the opinion in this case, filed August 31, 1989, Perez v. Simmons, 884 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1989), is amended as follows:
Page 1140, first paragraph in the second column. The' last sentence should be modified to read:
' “However, if the officers did not have reasonable grounds for believing that Albert resided in the apartment, the search was illegal under Steagald [v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) ].”
Page 1142, first paragraph in the first column’. The second sentence in the first paragraph, commencing with the word “Unless,” should be modified to read:
“Unless a jury finds that the officers had reasonable grounds for believing that Albert was a co-resident of the apartment, and for believing that Albert was in the apartment at the time, see Payton [v. New York], 445 U.S. [573] at 603, 100 S.Ct. [1371] at 1388 [63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) ], the search was in violation of Irma Perez’s constitutional rights.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.