Young v. Hauri

3 Citing cases

  1. Glymph v. CT Corp. Sys.

    2:21-cv-01704-JHC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 22, 2025)

    Although the question of whether conduct is sufficiently outrageous is ordinarily for the jury, it is ‘initially for the court to determine if reasonable minds could differ on whether the conduct was sufficiently extreme to result in liability.'” Lemelson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 641 F.Supp.3d 1005, 1014 (W.D. Wash. 2022) (quoting Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 782 P.2d 1002, 1012 (1989)). Also, “[s]evere emotional distress is ‘not transient and trivial' but distress such that ‘no reasonable [person] could be expected to endure it.'” Young v. Pena, 428 F.Supp.3d 474, 481 (W.D. Wash. 2019), aff'd sub nom. Young v. Hauri, 859 Fed.Appx. 87 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Kloepfel, 149 Wash.2d at 203). “In opposing a motion for summary judgment, it is the plaintiff's burden to come forward with evidence that any emotional distress was more than transient or trivial.

  2. United States v. Owens

    No. CR423-081 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2024)

    See Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194, 196 (2021) (holding that “Cady's acknowledgement of [police] ‘caretaking' duties” does not “create[] a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home”); cf. Young v. Hauri, 859 Fed.Appx. 87, 88 n.1 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Caniglia for the proposition “that Cady should not be read expansively”). Though Caniglia focused on the First Circuit's version of the Community Care Doctrine

  3. Self v. Columbia Cnty.

    3:20-cv-00584-BR (D. Or. Jul. 8, 2021)

    To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity courts apply “‘a two-part analysis.'” Young v. Hauri, No. 19-36098, 2021 WL 2206520, at *1 (9th Cir. June 1, 2021)(quoting Frudden v. Pilling, 877 F.3d 821, 831 (9th Cir. 2017)). Courts “must decide (1) whether the plaintiff's alleged facts ‘make out a violation of a constitutional right' and (2) ‘whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant[s'] alleged misconduct.