TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Julie Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles

Julie CHALMERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee

Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 746 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 1, 1984
Docket
No. 82-6112
Judges
Wallace, Tang, Sko-Pil
Citations
746 F.2d 5701984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17130

Opinion

ORDER The petition for rehearing is granted. The opinion issued by this court on May 10, 1984 in the above-entitled case, No. 82-6112, is hereby withdrawn. The parties shall file briefs addressing the following issues:

1. Whether the existence of conflicting municipal ordinances on street vending proximately caused Chalmers’ alleged deprivation of liberty;

2. Whether municipal legislators have a duty to assure the internal consistency of municipal legislation;

3. Whether a municipal policy or custom existed that interpreted the inconsistent ordinances to prohibit street vending;

4. Whether a city violates due process by enforcing a regulatory scheme that it knows to be internally inconsistent;

5. Whether the Los Angeles Police Department knew or should have known that the street vending ordinances were internally inconsistent;

6. Whether the City may claim a derivative immunity based on (a) the immunity of municipal legislators; or (b) the immunity of police officers acting in good faith; and 7. Whether the promulgation of conflicting ordinances and the subsequent inconsistency between the actions of the City’s licensing authorities and enforcement officers render enforcement of the prohibitive ordinance a violation of due process.

Chalmers shall file her brief within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. The City shall then have fourteen (14) days to file a responding brief. If Chalmers wishes, she may file a reply brief within seven (7) days after the responding brief is filed. Opening briefs of the parties shall be limited to forty (40) pages and Chalmers’ reply brief shall be limited to fifteen (15) pages.

After the final brief is filed, this case will be calendared for oral argument before this panel at the earliest possible date. Counsel will be notified of the time and location of the oral argument.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Inupiat Cmty. of the Arctic Slope & Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corp. v. United States, 746 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1984) 0

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list