# Harveston v. Cunningham

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 5, 2007 · 216 F. App'x 682

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8607073

## Case

- **Full name:** Nathan Phillip HARVESTON v. Charles CUNNINGHAM Jane Doe Cunningham, wife Vennessia Daniels
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 5, 2007
- **Citations:** 216 F. App'x 682
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schroeder
- **Judges:** Bea, Schroeder, Tallman
- **Cited by:** 1 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/8607073

## Opinion text

SCHROEDER, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that on this record the officers are entitled to immunity. There is conflicting evidence in the record as to whether the officers were told that someone inside needed help. If the officers had information that someone inside needed help, even though there was no visible or audible disturbance at the scene when they arrived, qualified immunity would be proper. The dispatch report in the circumstances of this case is not sufficient to justify immunity for a warrantless entry into a residence. In my view there is a disputed issue of material fact and for that reason I cannot join the majority’s disposition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8607073. Public record. Not legal advice.