Case law

Beryl P. Williamson v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service

974 F.2d 1525 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 14, 1992

by Harvey Williamson as a farm: that use clearly is a “qualified use”, as § 2032A(b)(2) defines “qualified use” as (among other things) “the devotion of the property to ... use as a farm for farming purposes.” … Subsection (e)(1) states that the recapture tax is imposed when the qualified heir ceases to use the property for a qualified use, and subsection (c)(6) — which defines how subsection (c)(1) shall be construed — clearly states

United States v. Plunk

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2007

We also held that the government’s admissible evidence failed to establish probable cause for the forfeiture of the SuperCub. Id. at 463- 64. … Awarding consequential damages to Plunk would contra- vene the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Derrick Oden, Sr. v. J. Acebedo

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 26, 2021

Qualified Immunity. “We review whether the officials are entitled to qualified immunity de novo.” Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019). … Here, the district courts properly found that the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the “right to be free from heightened risk of Valley Fever was not clearly established when the officials acted.”

George F. Jewett, Jr., and Lucille M. Jewett v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

638 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 18, 1981

If it refers to the date when the interest created by the trust was established, the disclaimer clearly was not timely. … (b) Qualified disclaimer defíned.

United States v. Hermanek

289 F.3d 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 15, 2002

Addressing the question of words experienced for the first time in this case, the court ruled over defense objection that: “The agents or witnesses need not state that the exact word is clearly established in the drug world … Having thus established the scope of permissible testimony, the court deferred to trial a determination of whether any witness in particular was qualified as an expert.

Morales-Garcia v. Holder

567 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 3, 2009

at issue can qualify as a CIMT under the modified categorical approach. … See Quintero-Salazar, 506 F.3d at 694 (“Under the modified categorical approach we examine documentation or judicially noticeable facts that clearly establish that the conviction is a predicate conviction for removal purposes

James Ross v. John Myrick

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2020

Officials acting under the color of state law are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff has shown (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Thus, the district court properly granted the defendants qualified immunity on this claim because the right was not clearly established. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 2.

United States v. State of California

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 18, 2019

The district court did not, however, enjoin the provisions of AB 450 that establish employee- notice requirements. … The United States argues that the proposition that intergovernmental immunity is only implicated when federal activities are obstructed “is clearly wrong, because it would render the intergovernmental-immunity doctrine entirely

United States v. Anderson

625 F.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 16, 2010

ANDERSON [3] The district court’s holding was clearly erroneous. … Thus, Anderson’s nolo contendere pleas resulted in convictions, and either conviction was sufficient to qualify as a predicate fel- ony.

Jose Guerra v. William Barr

974 F.3d 909 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2020

The IJ concluded that petitioner established a clear probability of torture and granted CAT relief, but the Board reversed. … Under this scheme, the BIA may only review the IJ’s factual findings to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. Id.

John Bartholomew Carla Bartholomew v. Sheryl Stassi-Lampman, Pat Roth

95 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 1996

" 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Caldwell v. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). 16 Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

United States v. Barry Bonds

730 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 2013

On December 4, 2003, Bonds testified before the grand jury under a grant of immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002. … The government also explained the scope of the immunity grant under which Bonds would testify.

Foy Chandler v. R. Guttierrez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 19, 2019

Guttierrez is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Chandler’s clearly established constitutional rights The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts—and the Ninth Circuit in particular—not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”

Justin C.S. Kim v. Commandant, Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center, an Agency of the United States Government

772 F.2d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 24, 1985

Of the three qualifying Koreans, one was ultimately selected to fill the position. … The sample involved in this case (4 Germans and 8 other non-native English speakers) is clearly too small to make the 50%/100% differential adequate proof of adverse impact. See, e.g., Mayor of Philadelphia v.

Jeff D. v. Kempthorne

365 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 23, 2004

The defendants filed their answer setting forth multiple defenses to the plaintiffs’ action, including Eleventh Amendment immunity. … That determination was clearly not final, however, since the district court refused to hold the defendants in contempt.

Karen Yuen Fong YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United States, DefendantAppellee

114 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1997

Clarifying a prior BIA statement suggesting that the status of “parent,” once established, cannot be terminated, the BIA explained that to qualify as siblings under section 203(a)(5) of the INA, a petitioner must establish … Relying on its decision in Matter of Kong , the Board stated that “to qualify as siblings under section 203(a)(5) of the Act, a petitioner must establish both that he and the beneficiary once qualified as children of a common

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elvidio ANDRINO-CARILLO, Defendant-Appellant

63 F.3d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 24, 1995

Before the 1990 amendments, the listed aggravated felonies were' clearly not subject to any minimum imprisonment requirements. … When viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence is sufficient to establish identity.

William Stafford v. Pam Ahlin

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 10, 2021

Because no clearly established law overcomes the Defendants’ qualified immunity, we affirm.2 To overcome qualified immunity, Stafford must show that government officials violated “clearly established … constitutional … Stafford argues but fails to persuasively explain how reframing the right as 1 We grant Stafford’s motion for judicial notice and Ahlin’s request for judicial notice. 2 Qualified immunity is a pure question of law that

David Thomas v. Isidro Baca

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 28, 2020

The district court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds is reviewed de novo. S.B. v. County of San Diego, 864 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 2017). … An analysis regarding qualified immunity involves two elements: (1) whether the officials’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Michael Angelo MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

85 F.3d 1387 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1996

Howlett involved the question whether a state defense of sovereign immunity to a federal-law claim could be available in state court when it would not be so in federal *1392 court. … The actual holding in Howlett was that the state immunity rule was substantive and preempted by federal law. Id. at 375-81 , 110 S.Ct. at 2442-46.