Case law

The United States National Bank of Portland, Oregon, Trustee, and Walter G. E. Smith v. Fabri-Valve Company of America, a Corporation, Fabri-Valve Company of America, a Corporation v. The United States National Bank of Portland, Oregon, Trustee, and Walter G. E. Smith

235 F.2d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 14, 1956

Upon the death of the wife, the United States National Bank qualified as successor. … The evidence clearly shows the bank was the owner of the right to recover all damages for the infringement.

Estate of Kevin Brown v. Michael Lambert

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 2019

Rather, “for purposes of determining whether the alleged conduct violates clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known, we assume the version of the material facts asserted by the non-moving party … Officer Mekenas-Parga, however, is entitled to qualified immunity on the overbroad warrant claim.

Randon Miller v. City of Scottsdale

88 F.4th 800 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 8, 2023

immunity defense in the district court or whether Miller waived his arguments that there was no probable cause. … CITY OF SCOTTSDALE 28, 2020 do not qualify because they both occurred before EO 2020-18’s enactment on March 30, 2020.

United States v. James Morgan Jackson

544 F.2d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 12, 1976

The district court found that to be sufficient to establish abandonment. We disagree, even on the “clearly erroneous” standard by which such rulings of fact mixed with law in criminal matters are judged on review. … The informant here was untested, so there was no previous experience to qualify her. Prior dealing is not the only basis for establishing reliability, however.

Lebbos v. Judges of Superior Court, Santa Clara County

883 F.2d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 1989

The court also dismissed any claims for damages against the named judges finding them immune from liability. … In any event, this case is clearly distinguishable from Goldie's.

United States v. Carlos Chavaria-Angel, AKA Guadalupe Garcia, AKA Guadalupe Chevarria-Garcia

323 F.3d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 2003

Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (explaining that a conviction may be proved through “documentation or judicially noticeable facts that clearly establish that the conviction is a predicate conviction … [or] by some other form of clearly reliable evidence”).

Escobar v. Holder

567 F.3d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 27, 2009

Thus, the government’s emphasis on section 240A(a)(l)’s requirement *475 of being “lawfully admitted” is clearly misplaced. 24 I. & N. Dec. at 234 . … As discussed, section 240A(a) was only intended to clarify “the type of status necessary to qualify for relief.” Id. (emphasis added).

Carlos S. Camacho, Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Civil Service Commission

666 F.2d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 8, 1982

They argue that the appellate division of the district court, by analogy to a state supreme court, should be immune from federal review of a local question of law. … Section 3(a), concerning the establishment of a Civil Service Commission, provides: Establishment.

Edwards v. Heckler

770 F.2d 1496 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 1985

The Secretary appeals the judgment establishing the new standard and the parties cross-appeal the attorney’s fee award. … Whether the unconstitutionality of section 411(a)(5)(A) was “clearly foreshadowed” prior to Frontiero is but one factor.

Pacific National Insurance Company v. United States

422 F.2d 26 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 1970

A “Special Account” was established for each of Central’s construction jobs. … own established procedures. 22 Affirmed. 1 .

Chudacoff v. UNIV. MED. CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

649 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 9, 2011

. § 11112(a) and therefore were not entitled to HCQIA immunity. Id. at 1176-77. The district court denied defendants’ motion to reconsider, and defendants appealed the issue of HCQIA immunity only. … Given the district court’s conclusion that defendants’ actions amounted to due process violations, com- bined with our determination that Ellerton, Carrison, Bern- stein, and Roberts’ conduct clearly constituted state action

McCalden v. California Library Ass'n

955 F.2d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 1990

The Unruh Act, Cal.Civ.Code § 51, prohibits discrimination by business establishments on the basis of séx, race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin. … Nor does the fact that appellees were politically motivated immunize them from liability if they in fact engaged in threats of violence.

Nunez v. City of Los Angeles

147 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 5, 1998

To have a property interest, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire.” Roth, 408 U.S. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 . … Group preferences, which merely establish group goals, do not suffice.

12 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1514, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,959 Leon Jones, Etc. v. Pacific Intermountain Express

536 F.2d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 21, 1976

The district court also cited two Third Circuit cases which “subsequently reached similar conclusions.” 8 Clearly the denial was justified under the law existing on April 2, 1975. Franks v. … employer defendants, (2) would be against only those employers who had then intentionally en *820 gaged in discriminatory, and hence unlawful, employment practices, and (3) would apply only to the benefits of presently qualified

United States v. Alan David Passaro

624 F.2d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 13, 1980

The testimony of three experts clearly showed that Passaro had left two fingerprints on a piece of glassware found at the laboratory. … Unlike a double-locked footlocker, which is clearly separate from the person of the arrestee, the wallet found in the pocket of Mr.

United States v. Charles Perkins

850 F.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2017

And our ease law did not clearly establish that copies of images alleged to be “lascivious” under § 2256(2)(A)(v) needed to be included in a search warrant application. … Even assuming that the district court clearly erred in crediting Agent Ensley, the majority inappropriately holds Agent Ensley reckless for not following a rule that was not clearly established at the time he submitted his

Dahl v. Rosenfeld

316 F.3d 1074 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 2003

But, if a claim “may be litigated without reference to the rights and duties established in a CBA,” it is not preempted. Id. … Because we do not have jurisdiction, we cannot reach the question whether the firm enjoys immunity from personal liability for acts undertaken as union representatives. See Peterson v.

Zia v. Garland

112 F.4th 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2024

To qualify for such a waiver, the alien must show the marriage was entered into in “good faith.” Id. Because he was unable to file a joint 6 ZIA V. … The BIA then affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, finding it was based on “specific, cogent reasons,” and was not clearly erroneous.

Xilinx, Inc. v. Commissioner

567 F.3d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 27, 2009

Rather, the regulation’s accounting requirements are clearly intended to ensure the government has a basis upon which to verify whether taxpayers who obtain the benefit of a qualified cost sharing agreement are accurately … Those two subsections establish accounting requirements that taxpayers in a qualified cost sharing agreement must meet.

E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District Office of Administrative Hearings

652 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 14, 2011

Jacques’s report thus makes it clear that E.M.’s disability was not as clearly noticeable in 2004 as it was in 2007. … The majority misleadingly contends that because 1) E.M.’s complaint to the district court alleged that “testimonial and documentary evidence established a strong basis for suspecting that E.M. can qualify for special education