Case law

Gulamali Karmali & Af-Chim Pullman Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

707 F.2d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 1983

Service, 685 F.2d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir.1982) (“The interpretation of a statute by the agency or department charged with its administration is entitled to great deference and should be accepted unless demonstrably irrational or clearly … A petition approved under this paragraph is valid for the period of established need for the beneficiary’s temporary services but not to exceed three years....

United States v. Kremer

11 F. App'x 940 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 2001

Kimball, an officer with extensive experience in narcotics enforcement, is qualified to know the odor, which is sufficiently distinctive to be *941 recognized. Id. … Here, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the affidavit did not contain material false statements or omissions.

Herrera v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services

571 F.3d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2009

Additionally, the AAO concluded that the evidence of her role at the time of the 2001 interview was also insufficient to establish eligibility for approval of the 1-140 petition. … Had Congress intended to constrain the agency’s revocation authority, it easily could have expressed that intent clearly.

Lonney H. White, Jr. Connie J. White v. Atlantic Richfield Company

945 F.2d 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

Consequently, the opinion of an individual assignor as to the market value of the lease may be admissible without qualifying him as an expert. … Rogers is distinguishable because the breach in that case was the failure to establish an escrow account.

American Academy of Pain Management v. Joseph

353 F.3d 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 2, 2004

The statute and regulations clearly survive rational basis review because they rationally promote a legitimate state interest. See Cal. … Approximately 27,000 persons have qualified for the designation nationwide.

United States v. Maureen Chan

792 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 9, 2015

In order to establish that she qualifies for coram nobis relief, the petitioner must show the following four factors: (1) a more usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier … We agree with Chan that Kwan did not establish a new rule under Teague , and we reverse the district court on that basis.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Platforms Wireless International Corp.

617 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 2010

In light of the above, the district court’s decision was neither “clearly unreasonable” nor inequitable. … [7] Rule 144 establishes several explicit safe harbors that qualify for the Section 4(1) exemption. If a transaction com- 10742 SEC v.

United States v. Florentino Marquez-Lobos

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 21, 2012

Under this approach, a prior conviction may only be used for a sentencing enhancement if “the record includes docu- mentation or judicially noticeable facts that clearly establish that the conviction is a predicate for enhancement … The key to establishing lack of consent is non-acquiescence by the lawful custodian.” State v. Viramontes, 163 Ariz. 334, 336 (1990).

United States v. Albert Dupuy, United States of America v. Christie Buzard, United States of America v. Juan Antonio Tercero

760 F.2d 1492 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 22, 1985

Materiality is the touchstone in the determination of whether evidence qualifies as Brady material. … Upon request by counsel for Buzard for immunity for the co-defendants if they would agree to testify, the court said, “The government may decide whether or not they [sic] want to offer a defendant immunity.

Ordlock v. Commissioner

533 F.3d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 2008

Sections 7121 and 7122 establish the finality of closing agreements and compromises entered into with the IRS. See §§ 7121 & 7122. … spouse qualifying for such relief.”

United States v. David Mark

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 14, 2018

MTF/COA 2 breached his immunity agreement. The district court also concluded that Pugh did not intentionally conceal Mark’s immunity agreement from either Mark or his counsel. … Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Mark had not established bad faith, we need not reach the question of whether Mark qualifies as a prevailing party for purposes of the

Briceno v. Scribner

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 23, 2009

Our recent decision in Moses forecloses such a challenge, as it holds that there is no clearly established constitutional right to be free of an expert opinion on an ultimate issue. See 543 F.3d at 1105-06. … Clearly, Garcia does not fit this definition.

Doody v. Ryan

649 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2011

, or 2) extends or fails to extend a clearly established legal principle to a new context in a way that is objectively unreasonable.” … When evaluated against clearly established Supreme Court precedent, the Miranda warnings yrere constitutionally deficient. At a minimum, Doody was never clearly and reasonably informed that he had the right to counsel.

Schowengerdt v. General Dynamics Corp.

823 F.2d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 1987

Under Howerton , if the second search was as alleged, Kessel’s joint participation would clearly be "state action.” … That searches were conducted on behalf of the government ”indicate[s] the assumption of a police activity which is clearly a public function.” Dobyns v.

Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness v. Community Television

813 F.2d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 18, 1987

The plaintiffs clearly won on all three issues at trial, but just as clearly lost on all three issues on appeal. … Clearly the results obtained are no longer massive.

United States v. Sperow

494 F.3d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 26, 2007

Neither finding is clearly erroneous. Contrary to government counsel’s exaggerated assertion at oral argument, Sperow did not “vanish[] from the face of the earth.” … We disagree with the dissent’s implication that initial compliance with § 851(a)’s four procedural requirements makes the government’s notice to seek a sentence enhancement immune from challenge if later modified or withdrawn

Daft v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.

251 F. App'x 480 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 2007

Daft also signed the agreement’s guidelines, agreeing that failure to meet “all established standards of conduct and job performance” would result in his immediate termination. … Pursuant to the ADA, an employer may not “discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability....” 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a). Alcoholism is a recognized disability under the ADA. Brown v.

Barahona-Gomez v. Reno

167 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1999

See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (a)(2) (“The Chairman [of the BIA] shall direct, supervise, and establish internal operating procedures and policies of the Board”); 8 C.F.R. § 3.9 (duties of the Chief Immigration Judge include establishment … Absent any showing by defendants of cost, we cannot say the district court clearly abused its discretion in determining the bond amount.

Maria Medina Tovar v. Laura Zuchowski

41 F.4th 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2022

A qualifying U-  MEDINA TOVAR V. … We are not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that, to meet its burden, the government must provide evidence establishing the agency’s rationale for promulgating the regulation.

Grancare v. Ruth Thrower

889 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 26, 2018

We will reverse a district court decision only if it is premised on “clearly erroneous findings of fact or erroneous determinations of law.” Dahl v. … There are two ways to establish fraudulent joinder: “(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.