Case law

United States v. $493,850.00 in U.S. Currency

518 F.3d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 12, 2008

We will resort to legislative history when that history “ ‘clearly indicates that Congress meant something other than what it said.’ ” Id. (internal cita- tions omitted). … Claimants argue that CAFRA’s legislative history clearly indicates that the government is still required to show proba- ble cause to institute a forfeiture action.

United States v. Wiles

642 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 17, 2011

In Saavedra-Valazquez, we noted that it was already established that a completed robbery under Cali- fornia Penal Code § 211 is a crime of violence. 578 F.3d at 1106. … An attempt conviction “clearly ‘stands in some relation to’ or ‘pertains to’ the crimes of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor” and therefore qualifies as a predi- cate offense

Albert H. Meyerhoff v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

958 F.2d 1498 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 19, 1992

information that is: specifically exempted from disclosure by statute ..., provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes … Does the Ethics in Government Act Qualify as a Withholding Statute Under Exemption 3?

Van Pelz v. Banks

355 F. App'x 104 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 2009

If no holding of the Supreme Court has addressed the issue, the state court’s decision could not have been contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See Carey v. … Eberhardt, 169 Cal.App.3d 292 , 215 Cal.Rptr. 161 (1985), which held that a co-conspirator’s prosecutorial immunity (as a Native American) did not alleviate the other conspirator’s responsibility for his own acts in furtherance

Drake v Obama

664 F.3d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

We noted that whether the officials could in fact be subject to civil liability was dependent on “multiple contingencies,” including the likelihood of any civil suit and the question whether the official would be immune … For the foregoing reasons, the political candidates failed to establish redressability sufficient to establish standing.

United States v. Duane Nishiie

996 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 2021

United States, 409 U.S. 151, 162 (1972) (stating “a well-established principle governing the interpretation of provisions altered in the 1948 revision is that ‘no change is to be presumed unless clearly expressed’”) (citation … (“By constitutional design, the branch that is qualified to establish . . . policy and check any excesses in the implementation of that policy is Congress.”) (citing City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. U.S.

United States v. John Barlow

83 F.4th 773 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2023

In other words, “a reckless offense cannot so qualify.” Id. … According to that translation, when “the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with

Beck v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union

506 F.3d 874 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 1, 2007

Based on our review of the record, the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. … . *886 III In sum, we hold that the district court’s inference of discriminatory intent was not clearly erroneous, and accordingly we affirm the district court’s judgment on Beck’s Title VII claim.

John-Charles v. California

646 F.3d 1243 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 22, 2011

Finally, for purposes of § 2254(d)(1), the Supreme Court precedent at issue must be “clearly established.” … We disagree; in fact, John-Charles’s position lacks even a toehold in clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Wendell O. Meeks v. James H. Gomez Eddie Myers, Warden Dr. Blair

107 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 1997

The court also denied defendants' second motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the factual dispute as to deliberate indifference precluded it from granting summary judgment on qualified … immunity.

Boyd v. Bert bell/pete Rozelle

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 12, 2005

The NFL Plan is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and was established pursuant to collective bargaining agreements between the National Football League Players Association (“Players Association … Boyd therefore does not qualify for Football Degenerative T&P benefits.”3 Boyd subsequently filed this lawsuit.

United States v. Joseph Robertson

875 F.3d 1281 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 27, 2017

granting absolute immunity to social workers. … ROBERTSON City of Healdsburg is not clearly irreconcilable with Davis.

Greenhorn Farms v. Espy

39 F.3d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 1994

This provision authorizes the Secretary to establish “de minimis yields” below which a crop loss is to be treated as total. … Greenhorn points out that, to qualify for disaster payments based on reduced quality under section 205, a farmer must also qualify for disaster payments based on reduced quantity. See Pub.L. No. 100-387, § 205 (b).

Citadel Holding Corp., a Delaware Corporation v. Alfred Roven American Underwriters, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

26 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 9, 1994

Dietz, 247 F.2d 689, 694-95 (2d Cir.1957) (holding that § 23(a) serves to immunize from § 16(b) liability those corporate insiders who structure their option transactions in good faith reliance on existing SEC rules and regulations … Although there is no mention of options in the text of § 16 of the Act, and although, prior to the SEC’s rule changes in 1991, there was considerable controversy concerning whether options should qualify as “equity securities

Skokomish Indian Tribe, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe in Its Own Capacity as a Class Representative and as Parens Patriae Denny S. Hurtado Gordon A. James Joseph Pavel Anne Pavel Maures P. Tinaza Celeste F. Vigil Roslynne L. Reed Gary W. Peterson Rita C. Andrews Tom G. Strong Marie E. Gouley Victoria J. Pavel Dennis W. Allen Joseph Andrews, Sr. Zetha Cush Elsie M. Allen Alex L. Gouley, Jr. Lawrence L. Kenyon Doris Miller Gerald B. Miller Helen M. Rudy Ronald D. Twiddy, Sr. Nick G. Wilbur, Sr. v. United States of America Tacoma Public Utilities, a Washington Municipal Corporation City of Tacoma, a Washington Municipal Corporation William Barker, Tacoma Public Utilities Board Member in His Official Capacity Tom Hilyard, Tacoma Public Utilities Board Member in His Official Capacity Robert Lane Tim Strege G.E. Vaughn, Skokomish Indian Tribe, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe in Its Own Capacity as a Class Representative and as Parens Patriae Denny S. Hurtado Gordon A. James Joseph Pavel Anne Pavel Maures P. Tinaza Celeste F. Vigil Roslynne L. Reed Gary W. Peterson Rita C. Andrews Tom G. Strong Marie E. Gouley Victoria J. Pavel Dennis W. Allen Joseph Andrews, Sr. Zetha Cush Elsie M. Allen Alex L. Gouley, Jr. Lawrence L. Kenyon Doris Miller Gerald B. Miller Helen M. Rudy Ronald D. Twiddy, Sr. Nick G. Wilbur, Sr., Skokomish Indian Tribal Members for Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Tacoma Public Utilities, a Washington Municipal Corporation City of Tacoma, a Washington Municipal Corporation William Barker, Tacoma Public Utilities Board Member in His Official Capacity Tom Hilyard, Tacoma Public Utilities Board Member in His Official Capacity Robert Lane Tim Strege G.E. Vaughn United States Internal Revenue Service

410 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 3, 2005

No special immunity premised on sovereignty as such is claimed. … Ordinarily, whether a case is cognizable under § 1983 does not turn on whether the rights are well-established or not, although qualified immunity does turn upon that consideration. See Saucier v.

United States v. Benjamin Galecki

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 27, 2023

GALECKI 17 establish probable cause. … Amendment right against self-incrimination with the purpose of distorting the fact-finding process; or (b) the prosecution granted immunity to a government witness in order to obtain that witness’s testimony, but denied immunity

Robert Dark v. Curry County Curry County Road Department Dan Crumley, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Curry County Roadmaster

451 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2006

Clearly that exception is inapplicable here. In Newland v. … Again, clearly that exception is inapplicable here. 4 .

The Chippewa Cree Tribe v. Usdoi

900 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2018

To qualify as an “employee,” ARRA requires only that “an individual perform[] services on behalf of an employer.” § 1553(g)(3)(A), 123 Stat. at 301. … The Tribe seems to assume that this timing immunizes it because any prohibited reprisal would have to have taken  CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE V.

Walters v. Reno

145 F.3d 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 1998

A district court’s factual findings are entitled to deference unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. … Further, we note that parole for the purpose of remedying a constitutional violation clearly works a “significant public benefit.”

Trustees of the Southern California Bakery Drivers Security Fund Dirk Geersen v. Rick Middleton Bob Doss Ronn English Perri Newell South Bay Teamsters and Employers Health and Welfare and Related Benefits Trust Fund, Trustees of the Southern California Bakery Drivers Security Fund Dirk Geersen v. Rick Middleton Bob Doss Ronn English Perri Newell South Bay Teamsters and Employers Health and Welfare and Related Benefits Trust Fund

474 F.3d 642 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

In light of our reversal of summary judgment as to the ERISA fiduciary duty claim, we find that the district court's determination was clearly erroneous. … The district court granted summary judgment for South Bay Teamsters on this claim because Bakery Drivers could not establish standing as co-fiduciaries or participants.