# Stivers v. Pierce

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 1, 1995 · 71 F.3d 732

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6937037

## Case

- **Full name:** Martin STIVERS Mary Chase Ernsberger Chamar, Inc. v. Richard PIERCE George D. Wendell Denise Conrad Gary T. Robey Brian McKay Carol Widmer-Hanna Robert J. Rodefer Bill Bertram individually and as members of the Nevada State Private Investigators Licensing Board The Nevada State Private Investigators Licensing Board and Does 1-10
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 1, 1995
- **Citations:** 71 F.3d 732; 95 Daily Journal DAR 15866; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9034; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 33476; 1995 WL 704691
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Noonan
- **Judges:** Fletcher, Noonan, Reinhardt
- **Cited by:** 121 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/6937037

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a single panel member’s bias sufficient to taint the entire panel even in a unanimous vote and noting that "on a small board ... a single person's bias is likely to have a profound impact on the decisionmaking process”
- holding that reports of derogatory statements by an adjudicator about the applicant while the application was pending before the Board, standing alone, was clearly insufficient to demonstrate actual bias
- noting that if a disqualifying conflict were found "based solely on the fact that there may on occasion be 'some' competition for clients" between the practitioner-decisionmaker's company and the company with a matter pending before the licensing board, "[it] would call into q…

## Opinion text

NOONAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court except that I do not believe it appropriate in Part II B1 for the court to speculate as to the existence of a genuine issue as to the appearance of bias and as to the facts Stivers might conceivably prove; I do not believe that Stivers has shown that Rodefer’s report was the result of any decision by the Board to harass him; in Part IV A2 n. 9, the court has mistakenly expanded Sablan, 856 F.2d at 1827 by prefacing the quote from Sabían with the words “if prior to the assertion of the plaintiffs claim;” and under Fairar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 , -, 113 S.Ct. 566, 575 , 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) the plaintiffs in the plural are not entitled to any counsel fees because only Stivers achieved success.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6937037. Public record. Not legal advice.