Case Citator › Trevino v. Gates

Trevino v. Gates

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
99 F.3d 911
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
142 of 145
Citing cases (total)
1,019
Treatment dates
2001
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Trevino v. Gates is limited: 142 of the 145 flagged citations were read; the text of the other 3 could not be retrieved, and the 1 confirmed treatment is listed below. Navarro v. Block confined Trevino's broad merits wording to qualified immunity.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed citing opinions applied Trevino's attorney-fee, qualified-immunity, and municipal-liability rules, reported another court's treatment, or carried adverse-treatment language about unrelated authorities. The text of Morris v. Canyon County, Reason v. City of Richmond, and Alloway v. Whiter could not be retrieved, so those three opinions remain unread and no treatment was inferred from them.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
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, except the ones whose text could not be retrieved.

1,019 later cases cite Trevino v. Gates; 145 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 142 of them have been read, and the text of 3 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so those remain unread. 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 Trevino v. Gates?

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

Limited

  • The Ninth Circuit limited Trevino's statement that good-faith punitive-damages indemnification does not violate section 1983, explaining that the panel actually meant only that the council members receive qualified immunity.

    Navarro v. Block · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Though the quoted portion says that council members would “not violate section 1983” if they act in the prescribed manner, it is clear from the overall analysis of this section of Trevino II that the panel really meant that council members “would receive qualified immunity.” The analysis in this section of the opinion is directed at deciding whether indemnification for punitive damages violates a “clearly established” right.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Trevino v. Gates 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