Case law

United States v. 313.34 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Jefferson County, State of Washington, and Gary Smith Janice Smith

889 F.2d 814 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1989

The Smiths counter that Ninth Circuit precedent clearly supports the court’s ruling on substantial justification, and that the fees and expenses awarded were reasonable in amount. … The government advocates the adoption of the Eighth Circuit’s test of substantial justification as established in Phister: If the government’s appraisers are qualified or the other evidence of valuation is sufficient, the

United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, Bruce R. Morgan, Claimant-Appellee

16 F.3d 1051 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 18, 1994

Because there was no corroborating evidence in this case which clearly indicated that the money was drug-related, we conclude that the $20,-000.00 Morgan admitted to carrying could not establish probable cause or even amount … The court clearly did not mean "preliminary showing” in the sense of a watered-down showing that probable cause might exist.

Richard Boyer v. Kevin Chappell

793 F.3d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 2015

In short, Boyer has failed to present, nor have we identified, any Supreme Court precedent stating clearly established federal law that entitles Boyer to the jury instruction at issue. … Moreover, even if clearly established Supreme Court precedent required such instruction, Boyer would still not be entitled to relief.

United States v. Judith Paixao

885 F.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 22, 2018

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The following facts were established at trial. … But, the Court explained, not all federal funds qualify as “benefits.” Id. at 671.

Kqed, Inc. v. Thomas L. Houchins, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Alameda County

546 F.2d 284 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 22, 1976

[I] Clearly, the First Amendment grants the news media a constitutionally protected right to gather news. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-707 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972), Pell v. … A key test to determine whether a newspaper qualifies as a Page 2 1220.1B 7/1/76 “general circulation” newspaper is to determine whether the paper qualifies for the purpose of publishing legal notices in the community in

Nordyke v. King

563 F.3d 439 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 20, 2009

Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 60 S.Ct. 900 , 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940) (Establishment Clause). a The initial hurdle to selective incorporation is our decision in Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. … “Once the plaintiff establishes governmental classification, it is necessary to identify a ‘similarly situated’ class against which the plaintiffs class can be compared.

United States v. Robert J. Gulino

588 F.2d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 21, 1978

The actual statement of Holland was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to establish that such a call was made, and acted upon. It clearly was not hearsay. … Moreover, count V is not duplicitous of count I, as clearly appears from a reading of the two charges. Count I is a question addressed to Gulino’s knowledge of any contacts between KBS and state legislators.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. Ca Secure Choice Retire. Svg.

997 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 6, 2021

While the preemption provision is “clearly expansive,” the Supreme Court has cautioned that its “relate to” language cannot be read “to extend to the furthest stretch of indeterminacy,” because it would then lack any limiting … Code Regs. tit. 10, § 10000(q) (including in the definition of “Exempt Employer” any employer that “maintains or contributes to a Tax-Qualified Retirement Plan”); id. § 10000(z) (defining “Tax-Qualified Retirement Plan”).

Javier Carbajal-Portillo, Rafael Vega-Picos v. United States

396 F.2d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 12, 1968

S. 435 , 53 S.Ct. 210 , 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932), as constituting the principal enunciation of this well established doctrine. … The defense does not so much establish innocence as grant immunity from prosecution for criminal acts concededly committed. Here Carbajal goes free because what was done to him was done by a Government agent.

Murillo-Chavez v. Bondi

128 F.4th 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 13, 2025

An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) sustained both charges of removability, determining that the 2016 conviction qualified as a firearms offense under § 1227(a)(2)(C) and that the two 2018 convictions qualified as … More importantly, we expressly recognized that “[o]ur precedent judicially expanding the statutory definition of admission based on the benefits conferred by a lawful status is clearly irreconcilable with Sanchez’s holding

United States v. Paul Michael Mooneyham

938 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 1991

However, because Mooneyham qualified as a career offender, Guidelines section 4B1.1 required that his offense level be 32 and that his criminal history category be YI. … Because it is at the criminal history stage that section 4B1.1 establishes a new minimum criminal offense level for a career offender, we determined that section 3E1.1(a) does not apply to career offenders.

Robins v. Harum

773 F.2d 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 1985

Doe, 740 F.2d 322, 326 (5th Cir.1984) (“To hold Par-ratt applicable to the alleged fourth amendment violation in the present case [unreasonable seizure] would be to write Monroe out of existence, a result clearly not intended … Younger, this court held that conduct which occurs pursuant to an established institutional practice is not subject to the Parratt analysis because it is not random or unauthorized.

United States v. Jason Lee

821 F.3d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 6, 2016

Ct. 1990, 1993 (2013) (“No fair- minded jurist could think that [the Supreme Court case at issue] clearly establishes that the enforcement of the Nevada rule in this case is inconsistent with the Constitution.”). … Ct. 1, 4 (2014) (scolding the Ninth Circuit for granting habeas relief based on its own precedent, where AEDPA requires that a state court decision violate clearly established federal law as established by the Supreme Court

Carlos Mendoza v. Tom L. Carey, Warden

449 F.3d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 2006

established by the Supreme Court. … Accordingly Kane’s holding that the Supreme Court has not clearly established a Sixth Amendment right to law library access has no bearing on the inquiry before us.

Richard Peters v. Charles Raymond

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

at the hands of other inmates was clearly established, and a reasonable official would have known that placing Peters back in the same cell after he was physically attacked by his cellmate would violate the Eighth Amendment … Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (per curiam) (discussing qualified immunity; explaining that a clearly established right “is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing

Wallace M. Telford v. Clackamas County Housing Authority, Ralph Groener, Robert Schumacher, Jono D. Hildner

710 F.2d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 14, 1983

He was highly qualified and operated one of the two housing authorities in the nation that required no operating subsidy from HUD (Pretrial Order, Stipulated Facts). … II Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law.

Jie Lin v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

356 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 26, 2004

Establishing refugee status To prevail in his asylum claim, Lin must show that he qualifies as a refugee under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42) by establishing that (1) he has been a victim of persecution, (2) he is a member of a … Counsel’s utter failure to discover facts and present supporting legal analysis thus clearly prejudiced Lin. b.

Sara Kelley v. San Diego County Health

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 2, 2021

Therefore, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. 3. … Because Appellants failed to identify any clearly established federal constitutional rights that Appellees violated, and because Appellees enjoy qualified immunity with respect to the alleged violations of their federal

Phillips v. Ornoski

673 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 16, 2012

Colman’s Immunity Agreement The principal undisclosed benefit that Colman received for her testimony flowed from an immunity agreement struck between Minier and her trial lawyer, Cassandra Dunn, on Colman’s behalf. … That such an offer was extended was indisputably evidence “favorable to the accused ... because it is impeaching,” and was clearly subject to the duty of disclosure established in Brady.

United States v. Tuyet Thi-Bach Nguyen

565 F.3d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 15, 2009

Davies, an unindicted co-conspirator, testified under a grant of immunity that Phu Nguyen, Appellant’s husband, asked him to steal probes and sell them to CMS. … We have held that “a district court’s error is plain when its jury instructions fail to incorporate an element that has been clearly established by Ninth Circuit precedent.”