Case Citator › Lee v. City Of Los Angeles

Lee v. City Of Los Angeles

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
250 F.3d 668
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
609 of 609
Citing cases (total)
4,441
Treatment dates
2014
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. Lee v. City of Los Angeles is limited: the Ninth Circuit declined to carry its mistaken-detention due process holding to custody after a prompt court hearing and remand order. All 609 flagged citations have been read, and the 1 confirmed treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

Courts continue to apply Lee's judicial-notice, Rule 12(b)(6), equal-protection, and familial-association rules. Repeated history parentheticals call Lee overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, but Galbraith expressly overruled Branch v. Tunnell and named Lee only as a case that had cited Branch without addressing its continuing viability.

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.

4,441 later cases cite Lee v. City Of Los Angeles; 609 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 Lee v. City Of Los Angeles?

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 declined to extend Lee's mistaken-detention rule to a jailer's custody after a prompt hearing resulted in a remand order.

    Santiago Rivera v. County of Los Angeles · Ninth Circuit · filed

    The dissent argues that our decision in Lee compels the conclusion that "a detainee may still have a due process claim against his jailer despite a prompt court hearing that results in his remand to custody.” Dissent at 395. Lee permitted a suit based on the pre-hearing detention; it did not purport to impose liability for the post-hearing detention. ... Based on a misreading of Lee and concerns about “unsound policy,” Dissent at 395, the dissent urges us to create a circuit split. This we decline to do.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lee v. City Of Los Angeles 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