Case law

United States v. State of Washington

827 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2016

Specifically, the panel held that Washington’s cross-request for an injunction did not qualify as a claim for recoupment. … Washington’s cross-request for an injunction thus does not qualify as a claim for recoupment and is barred by sovereign immunity. 2.

United States v. Floyd Ray Phillips

482 F.2d 1355 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 1973

The government concedes that “receipts” may qualify as statements under the Jeneks Act, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 3500 (e), if they meet the further requirement of subsection (b), i. e. they must be statements which relate to the subject … The failure to require production of the receipts, however, was harmless for the following reasons: (1) As was found by the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial “It is clearly established by the record that the

Archie K. Babson and Victor J. Trial v. United States

330 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 22, 1964

When the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and all conflicts in it are resolved against the defendants, the fact of their guilt as found by the jury becomes clearly evident. … In speaking of the culpability of a salesman similarly circumstanced as Trial, the Eighth Circuit declared: “If believed, it (i. e., the evidence) established that the gist of the scheme to defraud was brought to his knowledge

Planned Parenthood Federation v. Center for Medical Progress

890 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2018

PROGRESS GOULD, Circuit Judge, with whom MURGUIA, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring: Although the procedure followed in this case to allow an interlocutory appeal of a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is clearly permitted … PROGRESS 15 accompanies a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, the right to be immune from suit). But see DC Comics v.

19 Employee Benefits Cas. 1954, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7884, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,527, Pens. Plan Guide P 23914f Brenda Hearn v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund

68 F.3d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 1995

Where the language in question cuts back or qualifies other language that sweeps very broadly, there's a particularly strong inference that the legislature employed the qualifier to limit the more general language in some … Our task is to read the broad language and the qualifier together to reach a sensible result.

Francisco Ornelas-Chavez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General

458 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2006

. *1059 To qualify for protection under CAT, Ornelas-Chavez must establish that he suffered torture, i.e., severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted for discriminatory purposes “by or at the instigation of or with … But we clearly rejected that interpretation of the regulation in Azanor. See 364 F.3d at 1020 . Therefore, we reject the government’s harmless error claim.

Officers For Justice v. Civil Service Commission Of The City And County Of San Francisco

979 F.2d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 5, 1992

It establishes as a target the appointment of minorities and women to sergeant and assistant inspector positions in proportion to their representation in the qualified applicant pool and sets a long term goal of 45 percent … We will not disturb the district court's finding that banding is a valid alternative selection device unless it is clearly erroneous. Anderson v.

United States v. Business of the Custer Battlefield Museum & Store

658 F.3d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 30, 2011

He indispu- tably has standing to seek that remedy, and we will not require him to establish standing for each component of that access that may be encom- passed within the general remedy he seeks. … They therefore “clearly fall within the definition of ‘judicial documents.’ ” Id.; see also Fenstermaker, 530 A.2d at 418 (“[D]ocuments upon which a magistrate bases a decision to issue an arrest warrant are clearly judicial

Malilia v. Holder

632 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 2011

. § 922(e) does not qualify as a predi- cate firearms offense under § 1227 because the enumerated list does not mention delivery. … [4] However, it is true that § 922 clearly regulates the delivery of both firearms and ammunition.

Carmona v. Carmona

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 2008

Tise established that a state court domestic relations order may be qualified even after a participant’s death, “[b]ecause a QDRO only renders enforceable an already-existing interest.” 234 F.3d at 421. … The Supreme Court has observed that the preemption provision is “clearly expansive” but that it cannot be taken “to extend to the furthest stretch of its indeterminacy.” Egelhoff v.

Everett Spillard v. Ivers

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 4, 2023

The district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees on the basis of qualified immunity. … Because Defendants- Appellees are privately employed medical providers, the defense of qualified immunity is categorically unavailable. Jensen v. Lane County, 222 F.3d 570, 577– 79 (9th Cir. 2000).

United States v. Salvador Hernandez-Estrada

704 F.3d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 5, 2012

As explained earlier, Hernandez has not established a substantial violation of the JSSA based on frustration of the Act’s fair-cross- section goal. … But I do so without enthusiasm because the rule we are bound to apply is clearly wrong.

Murray Hooper v. David Shinn

985 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 8, 2021

of clearly established federal law.” … Thus, even if Sanders was clearly established, it was not the applicable clearly established law governing Hooper’s due process claim.

H.B. v. City of Torrance

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 23, 2019

Defendants-Appellants City of Torrance police officers Jason Sena, Dusty Garver, and Scott Nakayama appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) if that right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Lal v.

Durkin v. Shea & Gould

92 F.3d 1510 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1996

(adopting district court’s opinion), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 , 102 S.Ct. 976 , 71 L.Ed.2d 113 (1981), is misplaced because Valerio is clearly distinguishable. … In short, we hold that a court-approved, shareholder derivative settlement pursuant to Rule 23.1 does not immunize participating attorneys from subsequent malpractice actions.

United States v. Kenneth E. Ford

989 F.2d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 30, 1993

I Ford, an American citizen, established a network of Canadian and American companies (the Companies). … Invested capital was escrowed in a qualified Canadian bank that would disburse the cash to a research company upon proof of qualified research expenditures.

William Fletcher v. Marquardt

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 15, 2019

Marquardt argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not use excessive force and the law was not clearly established that his force was unlawful under the circumstances. … The district court did not err in denying Marquardt’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. 3

Virginia F. Miller v. American Express Company

688 F.2d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 1982

Authority clearly exists to define as a discriminatory credit practice the termination of an applicant’s account on the basis of the death of his or her spouse. … This is not to say that American Express’s practice is immune from attack under the Act or under § 202.7(c).

Dorothy Hancock v. Montgomery Ward Long Term Disability Trust, an Illinois Corporation

787 F.2d 1302 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 17, 1986

The definition of ‘qualified’ is based on your education, training, and experience.” … Her response clearly requested such relief.

Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 2014

He wrote that the plaintiff did not establish a likelihood that she had a copyrightable interest in her acting performance, nor did she clearly show that the performance was not a work made for hire. … Because Garcia does not qualify as an author under Aalmuhammed, the law and facts do not clearly favor protecting her acting performance under the Copyright Act. c.