Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersca9

10,000+ results

0.41s

  • Borden Ranch Partnership v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

    261 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

    These cases recognize that activities that destroy the ecology of a wetland are not immune from the Clean Water Act *815 merely because they do not involve the introduction of material brought in from somewhere else. … The focus is clearly on each violation, and courts have consistently rejected attempts to limit civil penalties to the number of days in which violations occur.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • M & M Wood Working Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

    101 F.2d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 17, 1939

    It permits no immunity because the employer may think that the exigencies of the moment require infraction of the statute." … It stated that the employer had "called upon the United Brotherhood to advise which men are qualified to work."

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Rachel Ziegler v. County of Riverside

    403 F. App'x 257 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 17, 2010

    immunity. … To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts apply a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the defendants’ actions violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Landin-Molina v. Holder

    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 1, 2009

    As initially established, this process benefitted only those aliens who were in the United States lawfully. See id.; Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8, 13-14 (1st Cir. 2005). … Thus, § 1153(d) clearly contemplates that the marital relationship exists before the principal receives immigrant status.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Acron Investments, Inc. v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance

    363 F.2d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 1966

    incorporation not a basis for jurisdiction unless government owns at least one-half of corporation’s capital stock), 1 and since none of the Corporation’s stock is directly owned by the United States the Corporation does not qualify … Since the control which Congress and the United States exercise over the Corporation is clearly more than “custodial or incidental,” it would appear that the Corporation fits within the definition of “agency” of 28 U.S.C.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Xilinx, Inc. v. Cir

    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 27, 2009

    [5] Xilinx’s argument that § 1.482-7’s accounting require- ments allow taxpayers to self-define what is and is not a cost 12 Those two subsections establish accounting requirements that taxpay- ers in a qualified … 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

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Arthur Calderon, Warden v. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert Henry Nicolaus, Real-Party-In-Interest

    98 F.3d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 1996

    Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 , 89 S.Ct. 1082 , 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969), which established the basis for Rule 6: “[I]n appropriate circumstances, a district court, confronted by a petition for habeas corpus which establishes a prima … Here, Nicolaus does not contend that his discovery request qualifies for this exception. Fourth, courts should not allow prisoners to use federal discovery for fishing expeditions to investigate mere speculation.

    Cited 161 timesPublished
  • United States v. Robert House

    31 F.4th 745 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2022

    HOUSE 3 remand for resentencing without treating the marijuana conviction as a qualifying offense. … “A district court abuses its discretion when it errs in its Guidelines calculation, imposes a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence.” United States v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Haynes v. Van de Kamp

    959 F.2d 240 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 30, 1992

    He names as defendants the officers who hypnotized the victim, the prosecutors at his trial, and the California state attorney general, whose office prosecuted the case on appeal. 5 The prosecutors are absolutely immune from … Moreover, the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

    Cited 1 timesUnpublished
  • United States v. Norman Anthony King, AKA Norm King, AKA Norman August Klause

    257 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 3, 2001

    These material falsehoods on the “Final Notice” postcards qualify as knowingly false, material statements made with the intent to defraud. … Accordingly, the record supports the amount of restitution as established by the district court, and we affirm that portion of the sentence. 5 8.

    Cited 47 timesPublished
  • Alec Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC

    905 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 18, 2018

    The Guidance also clearly lays out that a server is a dual job employee if her related tasks occupy more than 20% of her hours in a workweek. … Clearly, this guidance does not constitute an 64 MARSH V. J.

    Cited 42 timesPublished
  • 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 . … Curcio 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

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department

    629 F.3d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 5, 2011

    The court also explained that: Certainly by the time of this search in 1987, the trend, if not the clearly established law, was that an inmate’s constitutional right to privacy is violated when guards of the opposite sex … It is notable that, in determining that the officers involved were entitled to qualified immunity, the First Circuit focused on the emergency conditions surrounding the search.

    Cited 210 timesPublished
  • Martin Ventress v. Japan Airlines

    747 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2014

    Because the FARs established no requirements for airplane stairs, we held that the state tort claims involving airplane stairs in Martin wqre not preempted by federal law. Id. at 812 . … The FAA’s savings clause and Abdullah establish that state law remedies remain available even where federal law preempts state law standards of aviation safety.

    Cited 44 timesPublished
  • Westerheyde v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

    71 F. App'x 746 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 7, 2003

    A petitioner need not wait until there has been an execution in order to establish a reasonable fear of persecution. … We found the petitioner established a well-founded fear of future persecution. Id. Similarly, in Cardenas v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Foreman & Clark, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

    215 F.2d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 1954

    “Most of these men who qualify have been in the work most of their lives”. Then there are sewing machine operators, basters, finishers, seamstresses, the fitter at Burbank, pressers, etc. … ‘Cumulative experience’ begets understanding and insight by which judgments not objectively demonstrable are validated or qualified or invalidated.

    Cited 35 timesPublished
  • United States v. Travis Eugene Keesee

    358 F.3d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 1, 2004

    New Jersey 7 entitled him to a jury trial on whether the prior violent felonies or drug offenses were established beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. … Newton precludes this argument. 10 Newton holds that “Cumulative punishment does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if Congress clearly intended to authorize such punishment.” 11 Congress clearly did intend the additional

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

    486 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 22, 2007

    Second, § 301(e) applies effluent limitations established by EPA to all discharges. 33 U.S.C. § 1311 (e). … by the clearly applicable and specific performance standard.

    Reversed on other grounds by Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (2009)Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Guam Society Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists v. Ada

    100 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 7, 1996

    See 9 Guam Code Ann. 4.60 (Guilt Established by Conspiracy); 4.65 (Criminal Facilitation Established and Punished); 13.30 (Conspiracy: Definition). … Government of Guam, 866 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1989) (Guamanian government entitled to sovereign immunity and hence immune from suit in federal court to resolve title to shipwreck in territorial waters). 160 Richard A.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • United States v. Karim Hussein Al Nasser, AKA Karim Hussein Al-Nasser, Karim H. Alnasser, Kram Nseelt, Karim H. Alaassar

    479 F.3d 1166 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2007

    That testimony established an issue of fact as to whether the Border Patrol agents did or did not tell A1 Nasser to stop. … A1 Nasser argues that the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous because it was contrary to the tribal officer’s testimony.

    Cited 4 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.