Case law

Torres v. Immigration Naturalization & Services

45 F. App'x 603 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 2002

The BIA did not, therefore, abuse its discretion by concluding that Torres’s decision to attend the deposition preparation in lieu of the scheduled hearing did not qualify as an “exceptional circumstance” that was “beyond … Accordingly, the BIA abused its discretion in holding that the INS clearly, convincingly, and unequivocally established Torres’s removability. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). 3.

H. G. Maison v. Confederated Tribes Of The Umatilla Indian Reservation

314 F.2d 169 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 15, 1963

The court's judgment was generally favorable to the Indians: 8 "Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the members thereof have a right, privilege, and immunity … Schoettler, supra, 192 F.2d at 226 . 19 Thus, in both the Tulee and Makah cases it was held that the Indians' right to fish is qualified by the state's right to regulate such fishing when necessary for conservation.

EARNEST PRESCOTT V. KELLY SANTORO

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 2022

Prescott concedes that his actual innocence claim is not based on clearly established federal law and thus he cannot obtain relief under § 2254(d)(1). See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993). … This was a sufficient and reasonable basis for the state court to have found that DeGarmo was qualified, or at least that Plaine did not act deficiently in believing DeGarmo to be qualified and relying on DeGarmo’s conclusions

Javier Martinez-Hernandez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

778 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 24, 2015

To establish a showing of prejudice in the context of a motion to reopen, it is not necessary for a petitioner to make out a prima facie case of eligibility for the ultimate relief sought—a petitioner “need not show that … The BIA in this instance correctly noted that Petitioner presented no argument or evidence tending to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative, a requirement for relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C

Raul Arellano v. L. Helmick

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 23, 2021

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”); Horton v. … City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2019) (the inquiry as to whether a constitutional right is clearly established must be undertaken “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition

United States v. Chad Kirch McKittrick

142 F.3d 1170 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 28, 1998

Harrison, 34 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir.1994), the magistrate judge’s instructions to the jury clearly placed the burden of proof on the government. … Any error in the instructions would be harmless, nonetheless, because McKittrick cannot qualify for the incidental take exception.

Marine Fuel Supply & Towing, Inc., a Foreign Corporation v. The M/v Ken Lucky, and Her Appurtenances

859 F.2d 1405 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 25, 1988

Thus, the fact is deemed admitted and conclusively established pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b). … Here Bulkferts, which clearly possessed the statutory authority to bind the vessel, ordered and received the bunkers and fuel.

Sardi's Restaurant Corp. v. Sardie

755 F.2d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 12, 1985

Moreover, although the use of one’s surname is not a “defense” to a trademark infringement action, courts generally allow the use of one’s own name if reasonable precautions are taken: The concept that there should be some qualified … More importantly, even if appellant had clearly established his right to exclusive use of the mark, that is only relevant to the likelihood of success or the existence of serious issues on the merits.

Tarango v. McDaniel

837 F.3d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2016

Where a.state court fails to apply the clearly established federal law, applying an incorrect standard in reaching its decision, “the state court’s adjudication [is] contrary to clearly established law.” Lafler v. … Contrary to clearly established Supreme Court case law, the Nevada Supreme Court failed to conduct this inquiry, .

Sebra v. Neville

801 F.2d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 1986

[are] likely to have on the administrative process,” id. at 83 , 94 S.Ct. at 949-50 ; “the well-established rule that the Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the ‘dispatch of its own internal … A weakness common to each of Sebra’s claims relates to the immunity doctrine first developed in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950).

United States v. Blackman

72 F.3d 1418 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 1995

The burden of proof is on the party seeking to establish that the privilege applies. Id. at 129 . … Curdo drew a line between “oral testimony and other forms of incrimination” in holding that a custodian of records cannot be compelled to condemn himself by his own oral testimony in the absence of a grant of prosecutorial immunity

United States v. Frederick Ines Gordon, United States of America v. Edward Loeswick

844 F.2d 1397 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 14, 1988

Unknown to Gordon and Loeswick, Edler was granted immunity on May 15, 1984. He then called Loeswick to arrange a meeting about the grand jury investigation. … As to the third factor, Loeswick clearly engaged in the conspiracy for profit; he received a commission on every contract awarded to Edler Industries.

Pulido v. Chrones

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 2007

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if it arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 405-06. … To warrant habeas relief, “[t]he state court’s application of clearly established law must be objectively unrea- sonable,” not merely incorrect. Lockyer v.

David W. Kenny v. George Foster, Lt. B.E. Arbsland M. Barton H. Morse M. Fenoglio

87 F.3d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 14, 1996

We agree. 13 Law enforcement officers who raise a defense of qualified immunity in a civil rights action should prevail if, at the time of the challenged action, the right asserted by the plaintiff was not "clearly established … Because it was not clearly established that a pretrial detainee had a right to a hearing before he could be placed in disciplinary or administrative segregation, appellees are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Shizuko Kumanomido v. Nagle

40 F.2d 42 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 1930

together with their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities … That act must be construed with the view to preserve treaty rights unless clearly annulled, and we cannot conclude that, considering its history, the general terms therein *46 disclose a congressional intent absolutely to

Kavanagh v. City of Phoenix

25 F. App'x 516 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 2001

The record in this ease supports application of the clearly erroneous standard. … The district court’s use of the “case stated” procedure was proper, and we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review. B.

Carter Products, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

201 F.2d 446 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 1953

No one is bound to make his adversary’s witness *453 his own to prove facts which he is lawfully entitled to establish by the cross-examination of that witness. … Confine your future examination to the pictures.” • Now clearly it is not permissible for the Commission to qualify and use a witness for its own purposes as one having attainments in the field of gastroenterology, and then

Bernardi v. Yeutter

951 F.2d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 1991

to determine whether a future fee schedule should be established. … The Secretary asserts that § 1961 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity from interest awards and thus the award was an error of law. See Library of Congress v.

Tiffany Barraza v. J. Bodnar

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 17, 2018

Qualified immunity in § 1983 actions is not a “mere defense” to liability, it is an immunity from suit that is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v. … ; and second, whether the law clearly established that the arrest “was unlawful.”

United States v. Varela-Marquez

45 F. App'x 820 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2002

Consequently, we remand for re-sentencing to allow the district court to review the existing record and any state court documents that may be obtained in order to determine whether Varela-Marquez’s 1984 burglary conviction qualifies … Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905, 908-09 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (stating that when a the statute is broader than the generic definition, the court should examine other documents or judicially noticeable facts that clearly establish