Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Corrine Morgan Thomas, et al. v. County of Humboldt, et al.

Date: 12-30-2024

Case Number: 22-CV-5725

Judge: Robert M. Illman

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here For The Best San Fran Cisco Constitutional Law Lawyer Directory





Defendant's Attorney: Pamela AK. graham

Description:
San Francisco, California constitutional law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who challenged the constitutionality of county ordinance.



Putative class action arises out of Humboldt County's system of administrative penalties and fees

involving cannabis abatement. Plaintiffs—residents of Humboldt County—filed this action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging a number of constitutional claims against the County. The district court dismissed all claims in their

entirety on various grounds. We focus only on one of Plaintiffs' claims: that the County's system of administrative

penalties and fees violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.1 The district court dismissed that

claim because it concluded that the claim was not justiciable and that it was untimely.



Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Corrine Morgan Thomas, et al. v. County of Humboldt, et al.?

The outcome was: Affirmed

Which court heard Corrine Morgan Thomas, et al. v. County of Humboldt, et al.?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco County), CA. The presiding judge was Robert M. Illman.

Who were the attorneys in Corrine Morgan Thomas, et al. v. County of Humboldt, et al.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best San Fran Cisco Constitutional Law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Pamela AK. graham.

When was Corrine Morgan Thomas, et al. v. County of Humboldt, et al. decided?

This case was decided on December 30, 2024.