Case law

David Hamilton Sarah Hamilton, a Minor v. Washington State Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry Pension Plan Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund Western Washington U.A. Supplemental Pension Trust, Mary Hamilton, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. Linda Oppegaard, Guardian of Sarah Hamilton, and David Hamilton Sarah Hamilton, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees v. Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Defendant-Cross-Defendant, Mary Hamilton, Defendant-Intervenor, and Washington State Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry Pension Plan, Local Union 32, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant. Linda Oppegaard, Guardian of Sarah Hamilton, and David Hamilton Sarah Hamilton, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees v. Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant, and Mary Hamilton, Defendant-Intervenor

433 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

The pivotal question is whether the dissolution order "clearly contains the information specified in the statute that a plan administrator would need to make an informed decision." … This provision, known as the "QJSA" provision, does not apply here because Michael died prior to the annuity starting date. 4 The survivor's annuity may be waived without spousal consent if "it is established to the satisfaction

Debra Wilson v. James Rigby

909 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 27, 2018

This court is obligated to follow Alsberg, which clearly establishes that the amount of Wilson’s homestead exemption is determined at sale, not at filing, and may include a portion of the homestead’s postpetition appreciation … Certainly, the principle that postpetition appreciation inures to the estate is well-established. See Schwaber v.

United States v. Kern River Co.

264 F. 412 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 5, 1920

extended so as to include general power purposes; for whatever construction the words “may be used for purposes of a public nature” in the latter act might receive, if standing alone, these general words are limited and qualified … The rule invoked by the appellees that an appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on disputed questions of fact, unless it is clearly manifest that there is no substantial evidence to support them

United States v. Ted Stevenson Angwin and Christine Khamis

263 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2001

R.Evid. 406 advisory committee note (describing conduct that qualifies as habit as “semi-automatic”). … The burden of establishing that certain conduct qualifies as evidence of habit falls on the party wishing to introduce the evidence. See Weil, 873 F.2d at 1461.

Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, Inc. v. Clark County School District

941 F.2d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 5, 1991

This test establishes as the law of our circuit a standard that is heresy in First Amendment jurisprudence. … The board of trustees of a school district shall establish a course or unit of a course of: (a) Factual instruction concerning acquired immune deficiency syndrome; and (b) Instruction on the human reproductive system, related

David A. Norton v. Gary A. Napper

42 F.3d 1401 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 14, 1994

The Ninth Circuit applies a two-part test to qualified immunity determinations: "1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? … The difficulty of such an inquiry in the context of qualified immunity is immediately apparent: Norton must show that his rights were "clearly established" under a First Amendment standard that was long ago acknowledged to

United States v. Adalberto Rubio-Topete

999 F.2d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 1993

Through this testimony he hoped to establish that Soto knew the operation in depth and that Soto was not acquainted with Rubio-Topete. … It. is uncontested that Soto received no grant of immunity from the government.

Pastor A. Basiente v. Dan Glickman

242 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 19, 2001

These aliens residing in the CNMI are not "qualified aliens" under that exception. … S 1469d(c) (emphasis added). 21 We conclude that the plain language of the statute clearly expresses the intent of Congress.

State Bar of Nevada v. Wike

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 31, 2025

The Bar responded that the “[c]osts 1 The Supreme Court has held that, under the Constitution, States cannot invoke their sovereign immunity as a defense in bankruptcy proceedings. See Central Va. Cmty. Coll. v. … Here, neither party disputes that prong (2) has been satisfied, as the Nevada State Bar is clearly a governmental unit.

United States v. Arizona

641 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 11, 2011

“First, Congress clearly intended the federal Act to provide the Pres *381 ident with flexible and effective authority over economic sanctions against Burma.” Id. at 374 , 120 S.Ct. 2288 . … to acquire residency in the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1154 , or (2) who qualifies to become a United States citizen, 8 U.S.C. § 1421 et seq.

United States v. Ruiz-Gaxiola

623 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 24, 2010

so qualify. 16292 UNITED STATES v. … Had the government suc- ceeded in establishing the second factor, however, the district court’s finding as to the third factor would not be clearly erro- neous.

Douglas Keith Krohne v. Kurt S. Peterson

74 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 17, 1996

Sec. 1983 on qualified immunity grounds. … Again, it would be premature to reach such a conclusion on this limited record. 29 A two-part inquiry determines whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity: 1) Was the law governing the defendants' conduct clearly

United States v. Terry Joseph Wing

450 F.2d 806 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 22, 1971

There we said: “We are not persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decisions immunize smugglers from prosecution.” … But it would add to the proof in our minds, and we think their admission was clearly not irrelevant. IV. Insufficiency of the Evidence.

United States v. Fred Angelo Patacchia, Juliette v. Coloma

602 F.2d 218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 13, 1979

It is true that Patacchia indicated a willingness to open the trunk when asked to do so; but his response was qualified. … This finding is not clearly erroneous. *220 III.

Landover Corp. v. Bellevue Master LLC

252 F. App'x 800 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 29, 2007

Under any standard, Bellevue failed to establish that Landover impliedly consented to release Bellevue of its contractual duties. Landover was not under a duty to reaffirm the terms of the 2000 contract. … Bellevue argues that Landover’s conduct qualifies as an implied waiver. Washington law clearly sets forth a high standard for proving waiver. See Voelker, 383 P.2d at 306 .

California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman

328 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 2003

Not if it clearly fails to cover his conduct, of course. … a clearly identified measure...."

Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. California

195 F.3d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 1999

As such, this Court reviews test validity determinations under a clearly erroneous standard. 22 2. … Plaintiffs argue in their motion for reconsideration that the Public School System established by the California state Constitution must qualify within the " 'catch-all''' of § 2000d-4a(4) as “any other entity” receiving

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6409, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,547, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,799 Sara Townsend Sabow Thomas F. Sabow Vera Sabow David N. Sabow Dierdre Sabow John David Sabow v. United States

93 F.3d 1445 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 1996

We turn to an examination of whether the Sabows established subject matter jurisdiction and an actionable cause under California tort law as to each of the four claims alleged in their complaint. 16 A. … Statutory Framework and Legal Standards 20 The FTCA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, limited in part by the discretionary function exception.

George Aydelotte v. Town of Skykomish

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 24, 2018

retaliation for his speech was clearly established. … Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[C]laims for injunctive and declaratory relief are unaffected by qualified immunity.”). 3.

Blufford Hayes, Jr. v. Jill Brown, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin

399 F.3d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 7, 2005

The prohibition on the use of false evidence by the State at trial is clearly a procedural rule; it affects the operation of the criminal trial process, but does not affect the scope of a substantive criminal statute. 66 … The Supreme Court noted in Kyles that, in Agurs , the Court had expressly considered and rejected the harmless error standard established in Kotteakos v.