# Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 24, 1999 · 192 F.3d 1283

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6984050

## Case

- **Full name:** MENDOCINO ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER Betty Ball Gary Ball, Darryl Cherney Darlene Comingore, of the estate of Judi Bari, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. MENDOCINO COUNTY, Mendocino County Sheriff Tim Shea Burl Murray, County of Mendocino Deputy Sheriff Deputy Satterwhite Humboldt County Humboldt County Sheriffs Dept Frank Vulich Ciarabellini David R. Williams John Rikes City of Oakland Oakland Police Dept. James Hahn Ramon Paniagua City of Ukiah Ukiah Police Department Fred Keplinger Frank Doyle Richard Wallace Held Phil Sena Stockton Buck Patrick J. Webb Horace Mewborn Walt Hemje John Conway Timoghty McKinley Edward D. Appel, C. Michael Sims Robert Chenault Michael Sitterud, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 24, 1999
- **Citations:** 192 F.3d 1283; 99 Daily Journal DAR 10033; 45 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 114; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7912; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23137; 1999 WL 742710
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Schroeder
- **Judges:** Reinhardt, Schroeder, Silverman
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6984050

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding 1 allegations “that the alleged conspirators have committed acts that ‘are unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement’” sufficient to 2 support an inference that a conspiracy was formed

## Opinion text

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Reinhardt’s opinion. I write separately only to express my understanding that it holds that the cross-appeal is inextricably linked to the main appeal because the principal issue in the main appeal is whether the court’s immunity ruling is inconsistent with the order that is the subject of the cross appeal. The two rulings should be reviewed together. There is no need to speculate about what the relationship between the issues might be after they are decided.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6984050. Public record. Not legal advice.