Case Citator › Raul Gonzales v. The City of Peoria

Raul Gonzales v. The City of Peoria

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
722 F.2d 468
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
35 of 35
Citing cases (total)
35
Treatment dates
1999
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. All 35 flagged citations have been read. The en banc Ninth Circuit overruled Raul Gonzales v. The City of Peoria on standing to seek equitable relief, as listed below.
More on how this was screened

Later courts continue to cite its distinction between civil unlawful presence and criminal illegal entry and its discussion of local enforcement of federal crimes.

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.

35 later cases cite Raul Gonzales v. The City of Peoria; 35 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 Raul Gonzales v. The City of Peoria?

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

Overruled in part

  • The en banc court overruled Gonzales’s rule that standing to seek damages for an incident also establishes standing to seek equitable relief about the same conduct.

    Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We have previously held that where claims for damages and equitable relief arise from the same "operative facts and legal theory" a plaintiff with standing to seek damages also has standing to request injunctive and declaratory relief. See Nava v. City of Dublin , 121 F.3d 453, 456 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983); Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614, 619 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411, 1423 (9th Cir. 1987)). We applied that rule in Nava to hold that a plaintiff had standing to seek injunctive relief barring the California Highway Patrol's use of chokeholds even though the suit was "remarkably similar" to the Supreme Court's decision in Lyons. See id. at 455-56 (quoting Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102 (internal quotation omitted)). We believe that Nava's holding that standing to seek damages serves as a basis for standing to seek equitable relief is inconsistent with Lyons, and we therefore overrule Nava and our prior decisions on which Nava relied.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Raul Gonzales v. The City of Peoria 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