{"id":5827,"date":"2016-11-29T18:53:41","date_gmt":"2016-11-29T18:53:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/?p=5827"},"modified":"2017-07-07T17:47:44","modified_gmt":"2017-07-08T00:47:44","slug":"9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Memo-Decision-11.29.16.pdf\">memo-decision-11-29-16<\/a><\/p>\n<p>9th CCA received today.\u3000 We successfully defended ISP officer Janet Murakami in a civil rights action under 42 USC, sec. 1983, through State of Idaho Risk Management Program.\u3000 The opinion holds she was entitled to qualified immunity for a Code 3 call for emergency backup form other officers, who responded, and allegedly used excessive force to effectuate Rice\u2019s arrest.\u3000 The ruling in favor of Murakami reverses Chief US District Judge Winmill\u2019s ruling denying summary judgment to her for the Code 3 call, which we appealed, and which was reversed.\u3000 Previously, Judge Winmill had granted partial summary judgment dismissing additional claims for traffic stop and arrest, holding there was probable cause to do so.\u3000 If the procedural status on appeal is confusing to the reader, recall that an interlocutory appeal of a denial of summary judgment is allowed in such section 1983 actions before trial and final judgment, which is opposite the general rule.\u3000 Risk Management, ISP, and Officer Murakami, and the AG\u2019s office are\/will be very pleased with this favorable circuit opinion in favor of their officer.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>memo-decision-11-29-16 9th CCA received today.\u3000 We successfully defended ISP officer Janet Murakami in a civil rights action under 42 USC, sec. 1983, through State of Idaho Risk Management Program.\u3000 The opinion holds she was entitled to qualified immunity for a Code 3 call for emergency backup form other officers, who responded, and allegedly used excessive [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision|Racine Olson<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"memo-decision-11-29-16 9th CCA received today.\u3000 We successfully defended ISP officer Janet Murakami in a civil rights action under 42 USC, sec. 1983, &#8212; November 29, 2016\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision|Racine Olson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"memo-decision-11-29-16 9th CCA received today.\u3000 We successfully defended ISP officer Janet Murakami in a civil rights action under 42 USC, sec. 1983, &#8212; November 29, 2016\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Racine Olson\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision|Racine Olson","description":"memo-decision-11-29-16 9th CCA received today.\u3000 We successfully defended ISP officer Janet Murakami in a civil rights action under 42 USC, sec. 1983, &#8212; November 29, 2016","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision|Racine Olson","twitter_description":"memo-decision-11-29-16 9th CCA received today.\u3000 We successfully defended ISP officer Janet Murakami in a civil rights action under 42 USC, sec. 1983, &#8212; November 29, 2016","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Racine Olson","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/"},"author":{"name":"Racine Olson","@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aa8aa04699b3ee65fb6e3d91aaa6b2bd"},"headline":"9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision","datePublished":"2016-11-29T18:53:41+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-08T00:47:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/"},"wordCount":186,"articleSection":["News"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/","url":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/","name":"9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision|Racine Olson","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-11-29T18:53:41+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-08T00:47:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aa8aa04699b3ee65fb6e3d91aaa6b2bd"},"description":"memo-decision-11-29-16 9th CCA received today.\u3000 We successfully defended ISP officer Janet Murakami in a civil rights action under 42 USC, sec. 1983, &#8212; November 29, 2016","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/","name":"Idaho Law Blog","description":"Published by Boise Attorneys \u2014 Racine Olson","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aa8aa04699b3ee65fb6e3d91aaa6b2bd","name":"Racine Olson","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/195091aa7c1a8d686cee20a0c78fd345b826886ec2fc90ae360e059a7b83e248?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/195091aa7c1a8d686cee20a0c78fd345b826886ec2fc90ae360e059a7b83e248?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/195091aa7c1a8d686cee20a0c78fd345b826886ec2fc90ae360e059a7b83e248?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Racine Olson"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/attorney-profiles.html"]}]}},"yoast":{"focuskw":"","title":"9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision|Racine Olson","metadesc":"","linkdex":"","metakeywords":"","meta-robots-noindex":"","meta-robots-nofollow":"","meta-robots-adv":"","canonical":"","redirect":"","opengraph-title":"","opengraph-description":"","opengraph-image":"","twitter-title":"","twitter-description":"","twitter-image":""},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5827","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5827"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5827\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7567,"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5827\/revisions\/7567"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.racinelaw.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}