Case Citator › Bull v. City and County of San Francisco

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
595 F.3d 964
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
71 of 71
Citing cases (total)
289
Treatment dates
2010
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Bull v. City and County of San Francisco has been declined to follow. All 71 flagged citations have been read; the 1 confirmed adverse treatment is listed below.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

289 later cases cite Bull v. City and County of San Francisco; 71 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Bull v. City and County of San Francisco?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Third Circuit declined to apply Bull's Turner rational-relationship framework to Fourth Amendment challenges to jail strip-search policies.

    Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington · Third Circuit · filed

    In Bull, the Ninth Circuit held the constitutionality of a prison strip search was governed by Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), in addition to Bell v. Wolfish. Bull, 595 F.3d at 973-74. Neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has applied the rational-relationship test of Turner to a Fourth Amendment challenge to prison policies. While it is arguable that some Fourth Amendment rights are "inconsistent with proper incarceration” and therefore covered by Turner, see Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 510, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted), absent an express statement from the Supreme Court that Turner supplanted Bell, we find its framework for the analysis of detainee constitutional claims inapplicable here.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bull v. City and County of San Francisco and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace