Case law

Willie Lee Richmond v. Samuel A. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections and Roger Crist, Superintendent of the Arizona State Prison

948 F.2d 1473 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 1992

The language of the Arizona statute, as well as the cases of this court and the Arizona Supreme Court, establish that Arizona is indeed a weighing state. … Erwin received immunity in return for her testimony. Richmond v. Ricketts, 640 F.Supp. 767 , 792 n. 30 (D.Ariz.1986). . Corella was granted immunity, but neither the prosecution nor the defense called her as a witness.

Long Beach Area Peace v. City of Long Beach

574 F.3d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 2009

The two remaining city public services are less clearly related to substantial governmental interests — “construction” and “crowd control.” … Barclay, 272 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2001) (holding in a § 1983 action that state officials were not entitled to qualified immunity for limiting the message of a speaker who was protected by First Amendment).

John Karczewski v. Dch Mission Valley LLC

862 F.3d 1006 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2017

The barrier that Plaintiff faced was the lack of hand controls in Defendant’s cars, and the cars that Defendant offered for sale are clearly goods, not facilities. … § 36.304(b)(2), plainly qualifies as an “architectural barriers” claim.

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

United States v. El Dorado County

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2013

The question is whether that difference establishes a proper distinction. We conclude that it does not. … This kind of harm does not qualify.  UNITED STATES V .

53 Fair empl.prac.cas. 59, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,006 Claude Rodriguez, Leroy E. Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation H.R.M. Committee David Harriet Marlin Hess Kenneth Bridges K.C. Beck Dennis Heinemann Richard Conrad Robert Weatherly

904 F.2d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1990

To establish a prima facie case under Sec. 1981 Gibbs had to show that he was a member of a protected class; that he applied and was qualified for an open position; that he was rejected; and that the position remained open … His deposition clearly presented a question of fact as to whether the job was merely the lateral transfer the district court thought it was or a substantially new opportunity. 13 The Effect of Patterson.

Morgan v. United States

323 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 18, 2003

Tunnell, 937 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir.1991), maintains that a heightened pleading standard should be applied in this case because the government asserted the defense of qualified immunity before the district court. … A search “conducted without a warrant is ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment— subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.’” United States v.

Ralph Kakumi Hara v. United States

505 F.2d 495 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 18, 1975

The government’s proof to establish the charges contained in Count I consists solely of appellant’s original Selective Service file which was produced by Mrs. … The record does not affirmatively establish Form 261 as the source of the entry in appellant’s file.

Lau Fook Kau v. United States

34 F.2d 86 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 29, 1929

Altogether there are twelve (12) of us who can take turn twelve (12) times; total receipts sixty dollars ($60.00).’ ” A letter attempting to arrange such an assignation is clearly within the statute prohibiting the mailing … As to whether it was intended to convey that meaning, I don’t think I am qualified — not qualified to state that he intended to convey that meaning.

United States v. Charles Lynch

903 F.3d 1061 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 2018

The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence, because it clearly had the power to decline to allow otherwise-problematic evidence on an already-established and uncontested matter. … The district court held, however, that “being such an organizer/leader over another participant simply qualifies a defendant for an adjustment; it does not require it.”

United States v. Fabian Barrios-Gutierrez

218 F.3d 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 14, 2000

As the district court did not err in the first instance, the majority’s citation to cases discussing what qualifies as harmless error is besides the point. … Defendant: Yes, I hear, but I don't understand very clearly what he’s saying. Court: I'm not sure that I understand what his intentions are in that respect.

United States v. Maria Del Socorro Pardo Viuda De Aguilar, United States of America v. Anthony Clark, A/K/A Antonio Clark, United States of America v. Sister Darlene Nicgorski, School Sisters of Saint Francis, United States of America v. Philip M. Willis-Conger, A/K/A Phillip M. Conger, United States of America v. John M. Fife, United States of America v. Margaret Jean Hutchison, A/K/A Peggy Hutchison, United States of America v. Wendy Lewin, United States of America v. Ramon Dagoberto Quinones

871 F.2d 1436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 30, 1989

While the court did not reach the merits of the churches' claims, it did discuss the government's contention that the individual government agents were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established … The court agreed with the government that the agents were entitled to qualified immunity, finding that the Zurcher decision "cannot be said to clearly settle the Fourth Amendment issue in this case."

Acosta v. Pacific Enterprises

950 F.2d 611 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 11, 1991

Clearly, it is not. . Acosta refers to the SoCal Gas Plan as an “employee stock ownership plan” (ESOP), which is an individual account plan "designed to invest primarily in qualifying employer securities.” … In addition, the SoCal Gas Plan does not designate itself as an ESOP, but as “a plan intended to qualify as a stock bonus plan."

United States v. Jay R. Bishop, United States of America v. Gene R. Cardenaz

291 F.3d 1100 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 2002

“[A] defendant may rebut the Govern- *1107 merit’s proof of willfulness by establishing good faith rebanee on a qualified accountant after full disclosure of tax-related information.” Id. … The district court’s reliance on the government’s tax loss calculations was not clearly erroneous. See id. at 714 . AFFIRMED. 1 .

United States v. Charles Robinson Berry

258 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2001

The district court’s conclusion that Berry was an organizer or leader under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a) is not clearly erroneous. … Its conclusion that Berry was an organizer or leader under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a) was not clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED.

Brinker-Johnson Co. And Walter W. Johnson v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation

236 F.2d 195 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 14, 1956

Appellee has challenged our jurisdiction, claiming that the present action is in substance a suit against the United States which, it is argued, has not waived its sovereign immunity by consent to suit. … Menihan Corp., 1941, 312 U.S. 81 , 61 S.Ct. 485 , 85 L.Ed. 595 , clearly establish that R. F. C. may be sued. Appellee cites Atlantic Meat Co. v. R. F. C., 1 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 51 , and R. F. C. v.

Guimond v. United States

48 F. App'x 246 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2002

district court granted summary judgment for the United States, holding that there was no subject matter jurisdiction because the discretionary function exception of the FTCA applied and there was no waiver of sovereign immunity … This paragraph articulates an “established government policy” under Gaubert , and its language is clearly discretionary.

Tran Qui Than v. Donald T. Regan

658 F.2d 1296 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 13, 1981

The meaning of the Resolution is at best ambiguous and the document does not, by its terms, conclusively establish an intent to dissolve the corporation. … Moreover, even if the document by its terms clearly manifested an intent to dissolve the Bank or Than adduced evidence in his application to support that claim, the Resolution would have been ineffective to dissolve the Bank

United States v. Dewey

599 F.3d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 26, 2010

significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly … Though Dewey cites this section, he does not attempt to establish that Olson’s criminal record was similar to his.

Coast Metals, Inc., a Corporation v. Wall Colmonoy Corporation, a Corporation

315 F.2d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 27, 1963

Patentable invention requires new or substantially new general characteristics or utility; a composition clearly distinguishable from that previously established and commonly known by those whose labors bring them in touch … The patent in suit being invalid, the judgment is affirmed. * The record, as well as the specification of the patent itself, amply supports the finding that these claims, as qualified by the term, “Balance essentially nickel