Case law

Smith v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 2007

Accordingly, the state court decision had not been contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Id. at 654. … the facts of a particular prisoner’s case certainly would qualify as a decision “involv[ing] an unrea- sonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law.”

Jean Ridore v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

696 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2012

HOLDER 11989 conditions that his expert testified and the IJ found would be almost “equivalent to a death warrant” and qualify as “tor- ture” under CAT. … And, clearly, suffering from malnutrition or disease is clearly severe suffering and, therefore, constitutes an act of torture.

Seattle Pacific University v. Robert Ferguson

104 F.4th 50 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 2024

To establish standing, SPU must meet the well-established requirements: “injury in fact, causation, and a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the plaintiff’s alleged injury.” Lopez v. … As discussed above, SPU has established a pre-enforcement injury; therefore, SPU has established constitutional ripeness. 26 SEATTLE PAC. UNIV. 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.

Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

489 F.2d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 29, 1974

There is nothing in the Hughes opinion that modifies the established rule enunciated in the Hughes case when decided in the Court of Appeals that: “The proposition has so often been stated that it has become hornbook law … Such conduct was immunized from “antitrust” action by section 414, supra, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1384 .

United Scottish Insurance Company v. United States of America, Kathleen M. Fleming v. United States of America, Simone C. Weaver v. United States of America, John William Dowdle, Jr. v. United States of America, Maxine Cearley v. United States

614 F.2d 188 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1980

The court found that under applicable state law, "a Federal regulation presumptively establishes a standard of care" and "establishes a presumption of breach of duty." Id. at 243 . … In rejecting this approach, the Court focused on the Act's purpose of waiving federal sovereign immunity and concluded that a local rule based on sovereign immunity policies should not be applied: "Just as we refused to import

Robert Cutler v. Christopher Nanos

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2022

App’x 276 (9th Cir. 2016)—to argue that Deputy Barnes violated David’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Because Cutler has not met his burden of establishing that David’s rights were clearly established, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in Deputy Barnes’s favor based on qualified immunity.

United States v. Wayne Harrison

213 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 29, 2000

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Traun represented Harrison on an ongoing basis when the indictment issued. B. … He may have believed that he was still immunized by the terms of his grand jury use immunity deal with the government in December 1996. 4 .

Coye v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

973 F.2d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 1992

Over the years, the federal government stated its position clearly and unambiguously. … Subparts (II) and (V) similarly extend Medicaid coverage to persons who come very close to qualifying for cash assistance, but for narrow and specific reasons (child care expenses, hospitalization), do not qualify- The medically

Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

621 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2010

The treaty here clearly provides immunity to the airline only if the pilot has “reasonable grounds” to support his actions. “[W]here the text is clear, as it is here, we have no power to insert an amendment.” Chan v. … Reasonableness is a well-established and easily-understood standard, one that American courts are accustomed to applying in a wide variety of situations involving the behavior of individuals.

The Engineers Club of San Francisco v. United States

791 F.2d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1986

STANDARD OF REVIEW Engineers Club argues on appeal that the district court’s conclusion that Engineers Club qualifies as a business league is a finding of fact that may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. … In order to qualify for a business league classification, each and every requirement of 1.105(c)(6) must be met. On the facts before us, Engineers Club fails to qualify for business league status.

Andres Dominguez v. City of Scottsdale

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 2023

Dominguez’s constitutional right against this use of force was also clearly established. … We thus affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the Officers’ qualified immunity defense. 2.

United States v. Glenn Edward Maher

645 F.2d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 1981

The omission charged here is clearly immaterial. Nor has appellant established “perjury or reckless disregard” in the conduct of the officers, Young Buffalo, supra at 509 , which would discredit the affidavit. … We think the witness was qualified to give an expert' opinion on modus operan- di in view of his training and experience. 2 Cf. United States v.

United States v. Yoahjan Flores

729 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2013

Both parties agree that the 40-mm cartridges and M203 launcher qualify as “destructive devices” under § 2K2.1(b)(3) but disagree as to whether the cartridges qualify as “missiles,” and thus whether the M203 launcher qualifies … The record clearly indicates, and the parties do not dispute, that the cartridges are not self-propelled.

United States v. Stephen J. Eide

875 F.2d 1429 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 1989

Thus, the clearly erroneous standard applies. United States v. Wauneka, 770 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1985). … the agents, the district court found as a matter of fact that the FBI agents did not mention that they were merely assisting in a VA internal matter and that they did not make any misrepresentations or implied promises of immunity

Jeff D. v. Kempthorne

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

That determination was clearly not final, however, since the district court refused to hold the defendants in contempt. … Eleventh Amendment Immunity 28 The defendants' second contention is that the Eleventh Amendment bars the enforcement of the consent decrees.

Koirala v. Thai Airways International, Ltd.

126 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 1997

The FSIA creates a statutory presumption that a foreign sovereign is immune from suit unless one of the exceptions to immunity enumerated in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605 to 1607 applies. 28 U.S.C. § 1604 ; Export Group v. … The district court found jurisdiction proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(2), the commercial activity exception to immunity. .

Ness Investment Corporation, and Canyon Lake Resort, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Fred Wirth, Forestsupervisor

512 F.2d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 21, 1975

jurisdiction to review a claim that an agency wrongfully excluded from import certain coffee beans, and the court noted that arbitrary and capri *714 cious action in making an inspection or refusing to accept its results, clearly … whether the forest service acted in conformity with applicable law in receiving and handling *717 the application for a special use permit submitted by a successor-group of investors does not wholly concern action rendered immune

Marine Power & Equipment Industrial Indemnity Company v. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board Johnny Quan

203 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2000

To qualify for § 8(f) relief, the employer bears the burden of establishing that (1) the claimant had an existing permanent partial disability prior to the employment injury, (2) the disability was manifest to the employer … The ALJ’s finding was clearly supported by substantial evidence.

San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States

417 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 9, 2005

Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 279-80 (citing precedents that clearly established that § 601 created a private right of action). … Absent a clear waiver, sover- eign immunity precludes suit against the United States. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). NHPA offers no basis to infer a waiver of sovereign immunity.