Case law

United States v. Manuel Hernandez-Castellanos, AKA Manuel Francisco Hernandez-Castellanos

287 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2002

, then the conviction does not qualify as a predicate offense.’” … To that end, courts may examine the record for “documentation or judicially noticeable facts that clearly establish that the conviction is a predicate conviction for enhancement purposes.”

Pomarantz v. Pomarantz

860 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 7, 1988

Pomarantz’s home office did not qualify as his principal place of business within the meaning of § 280A(c)(l)(A). III. … The Second Circuit also seems to have adopted the clearly erroneous standard.

Diane M. Hendricks Kenneth A. Hendricks v. Bank of America, N.A., and Mutual Indemnity (Bermuda), Ltd., a Bermuda Corporation

398 F.3d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2005

Were we to treat personal jurisdiction defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) as waivers of appellate standing, we would ' essentially' immunize district courts’ personal jurisdiction determinations from … We must affirm the injunction “unless the district court (1) abused its discretion or (2) based its discretion on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Satava v.

Abbott Building Corporation, Inc., the Abbott Trust v. United States of America, Western Title Company, Inc., a Nevada Corporation

951 F.2d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 6, 1991

As a result, we need not consider questions related to the qualified immunity enjoyed by receivers for personal liability incurred through their receivership conduct. See Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. … For similar reasons, and also because Congress has explicitly *194 provided that the FSLIC and the FDIC may “sue and be sued,” we need not consider general questions about the sovereign immunity of federal agencies.

United States v. Espinoza-Morales

621 F.3d 1141 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 10, 2010

The opinion nowhere states or even suggests that the jury necessarily found the facts recited to be true. 13 The state court opinion therefore clearly does not satisfy TayloPs requirement that a document must reflect what … Because neither the state court opinion nor the criminal information and abstract of judgment establish that the jury necessarily convicted Espinoza of using force, the government has not met its burden to establish that

George L. Barry v. Otis R. Bowen

825 F.2d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1987

The plaintiff has continually claimed with regard to the substantial justification issue that the government defended a clearly unmeritorious case. … An award of bad faith must be based on specific findings that are not clearly erroneous or on sufficient evidence appearing in the record. See Toombs v.

United States v. Barry Bonds

784 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 22, 2015

Prior to his grand jury testimony, Bonds was granted immunity from prosecution if he complied with the immunity order. Special Agent Novitsky read the immunity order to the jury. … Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 679 (6th Cir.1985) (concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 1503 was not vague or overbroad because “[t]he reach of the statute is clearly limited to such constitutionally unprotected and purportedly illicit activity

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N

605 F.3d 665 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 21, 2010

That may have been because Hasbun did not separately discuss that requirement, but our court has discussed it in other cases and it is clearly set out in the statute. … If a debt has been judicially established, there is a “credit transaction involving the consumer” no matter how it arose. The obligation is established as a matter of law, and the statute is satisfied.

Daniel Miller v. Chad Wright

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2013

b) The Dispute Resolution Clause The Supreme Court has held that agreeing to an arbitration clause may establish a clear waiver of sovereign immunity. See C & L, 532 U.S. at 418-19. 10 MILLER V . … In the same vein, the Eighth Circuit has held that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 “clearly indicates congressional intent to abrogate the Tribe’s sovereign immunity . . .” Blue Legs v. U.S.

Admiral Towing Company, a Corporation and Walter B. Martinson v. Theo Woolen and Dorothy E. Cone

290 F.2d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 18, 1961

Her dominion over the vessel was such as to qualify her, said the court, as an owner under the statute. … The “clearly erroneous” rule derives from Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. viz., “In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury * * * findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly

Barber v. Hawai'i

42 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 1994

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES. The Preservation Society raises for the first time on appeal the argument that the fee differentials imposed in the small boat harbors violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Art. … privileges and immunities claim”).

Oscar W. Jones v. Lou Blanas County of Sacramento

393 F.3d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 27, 2004

Though the court denied Eleventh Amendment immunity to Blanas and determined that the County could be subject to liability for Blanas’s actions under Monell v. … In their briefs, the parties debate the questions whether Blanas may be held liable on a supervisory theory of liability, whether Blanas is entitled to qualified immunity in his personal capacity, and whether the county should

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.

225 F.3d 1068 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2000

Having found that “the Skyy bottle is clearly a preexisting work,” the court further held that the bottle’s “trade dress (the blue bottle, the gold label, etc.) and copyrighted material (the label and all non-utilitarian … Judge Leon Yankwich has called such [scenes] "scenes á faire” — i.e., "scenes which 'must' be done.” that language is often invoked to immunize from liability similarity of incidents or plot that necessarily follows from

Mitchell v. Office of Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools

805 F.2d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 1986

Mitchell, the person who successfully applied was better qualified than the plaintiff. … This is clearly not the type of case that justifies the award of attorney's fees to the defendants. Cf. Wood v.

Trustees of the Screen Actors v. Nyca, Inc., a California Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 15, 2009

Our own court also has not been immune from this confusion. We have sometimes implied, though never expressly held, that § 1145 is a jurisdictional provision. See Crotty v. … The ques- tion whether Couples’ “gross compensation” includes sums paid by TaylorMade is not clearly answered.

United States v. James Earl Matthews

374 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 2004

If the statute is too broad to qualify categorically, but “documentation or judicially noticeable facts ... clearly establish that the conviction is a predicate conviction for enhancement purposes,” then the prior conviction … may qualify under a modified categorical approach established by the Supreme Court in Taylor.

E.M. Ex Rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District Office of Administrative Hearings

758 F.3d 1162 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 15, 2014

Through this lengthy litigation it has been established that E.M. has an auditory processing disorder or a central auditory processing disorder. … Paragraph 21 alleges that based on the assessments and observations of E.M., he “clearly met the criteria of a learning disability.” Paragraph 22 reiterates that E.M.

Allen v. Scribner

812 F.2d 426 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 29, 1987

Were Scribner and the federal defendants entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity? 12 IV. … established constitutional rights."

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown

674 F.3d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 2, 2012

The Wilson II court clearly relied on the district court’s findings. … Although Yudof must implement § 31 like any other state law applicable to the University in the course of carrying out his duties as President, Snoeck holds that such “general administrative responsibilities” do not establish

William B. Greene v. John Lambert

288 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 2002

Unreasonable Application of Clearly Established Federal Law Our standard of review does not change the rule of decision. … established federal law.”