Case law

In Re: Nell Carter, Debtor. Nell Carter v. Peter C. Anderson, Chapter 7trustee,appellee

182 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 11, 1999

The bankruptcy court’s implicit finding that Carter was not compensated as an employee was not clearly erroneous[.]” … The plans *1029 for the bankruptcy filing clearly anticipated the April 3 payment. 3 .

Mark Stuart v. City of Scottsdale

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2023

immunity to the Individual Defendants. … There was no material evidence that any of them had violated the Stuarts’ clearly established constitutional rights. See Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228, 243, 134 S. Ct. 2369, 2381, 189 L.

Janet Planells, Antolin Marenco by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem v. San Francisco Unified School District, Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District, and Ramon Cortines, Superintendent of Schools, Individually and in His Official Capacity

978 F.2d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 30, 1992

The district court ruled further that the claims against Superintendent Cortines for actions taken in his individual capacity were barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The district court dismissed the claims against Cortines in his individual capacity on qualified immunity grounds. Appellants appealed this ruling.

Leonard James McSherry v. Sherman Block, Sheriff

880 F.2d 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 1989

It establishes the earliest boundary of criminality, and one who approaches its line is not to be compared to the criminal already in the act of kidnapping who is merely quibbling about the nature of ransom. … I do not regard him, however, as having waived the right to claim that the statute clearly requires a request to leave.

Nelson Andrade-Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch

828 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 2016

The Supreme Court has “long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Fiallo v. … Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1082 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[I]mmigration officials clearly have the authority to deny parole to unadmitted aliens if they can advance a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for doing so.”

Washington v. Daley

173 F.3d 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 2, 1999

Because the district court’s original order was not clearly erroneous, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. See School Dist. No. 1J v. … Consolidation would not have eliminated the Tribes’ sovereign immunity and thus would not have , cured the defects that caused the district court to dismiss the petitions in the first instance. .

Richard S. Berry v. Department of Justice

733 F.2d 1343 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 1984

They are clearly “possessed” by government agencies. … Statutes that do not permit agencies “wholly discretionary non-disclosure” may qualify for the exemption. Lee Pharmaceuticals v.

Kemp v. Ryan

638 F.3d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 28, 2011

The Arizona Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Federal law. … The Arizona Supreme Court’s application of Innis was not “an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law” under § 2254(d)(1).

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Delivery Drivers, Local 690 v. National Labor Relations Board

375 F.2d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 1967

not command the Board, as it could have done, to establish a craft bargaining unit whenever requested by a qualified craft union, or relieve the Board of its duty to consider the interests of the plant unions and the wishes … Thus, American Potash clearly ‘dictate [s] the course and pattern of labor organization’ by establishing rigid qualifications for unions seeking craft units and by automatically precluding severance of all such units in National

United States v. Pascual Dionicio Jeronimo

398 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 23, 2005

Rule 11 was amended in December of 2002. 2 There are a few well-established exceptions to appeal waivers under our case law. … Previously, Jeronimo was convicted of Assault II, which qualifies as a "crime of violence," see id. § 4B1.2(a), and "Delivery of a Controlled Substance," which qualifies as a "controlled substance offense," see id. § 4B1.2

United States v. Oregon

839 F.2d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 19, 1988

We have established a practical test which applicants must meet in order to qualify for intervention: (1) the applicant’s motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must assert an interest relating to the property or transaction … Clearly the district court’s consideration of the United States’ claims in isolation from the concerns of the applicants could have a powerful and immediate effect upon the practical ability of the applicants to affect in

Osu Student Alliance v. Ed Ray

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 23, 2012

Clearly there was no urgency and no rea- son to junk the bins instead of directing plaintiffs to remove them. … RAY (hence, the qualified immunity defense), but they do intend to take the violative action. Thus, before Iqbal, fixing the mental state requirement for a particular constitutional provision was most often unnecessary.

California Pharmacists Assoc. v. David Maxwell -Jolly

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 2009

A district court abuses its discre- tion in denying a request for a preliminary injunction if it “base[s] its decision on an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Id. (citation omitted). … The Supreme Court “repeatedly has recognized that such [direct economic] injuries establish the threshold require- ments” of Article III standing. . . .

Detrich v. Ryan

619 F.3d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 20, 2010

However, we can also consider circuit precedent in assessing what constitutes “clearly established” Supreme Court law and whether the state court applied that law unreasonably. Clark v. … See Terry Williams, 529 U.S. at 391 (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ”).

United States v. Venancio Rojas-Pedroza

716 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 2013

“In rare situations a defendant may clearly demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility for 32 UNITED STATES V . … Rojas argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that this part of his trial strategy weighed against acceptance of responsibility.

United States v. Hill

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2006

Placer County, 405 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.), amended by 418 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2005) (refusing to grant an officer qualified immunity because “[t]he plaintiffs’ established civil rights were violated by presentation of [a … Particularity is the requirement that the warrant must clearly state what is sought.

United States v. William D. Davis, United States of America v. Curry James Williams

15 F.3d 902 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 1994

The record clearly supports a finding that Davis was not entitled to a downward adjustment. … A district court’s finding that a defendant does not qualify for minor or minimal participant status is heavily dependent on the facts of the particular case, and we uphold such a finding unless it is clearly erroneous.

Williams v. City of Calexico

129 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 1997

We review de novo the district court's decision on qualified immunity, see Newell v. … Accordingly, the district court did not err by concluding that defendant Donnelly was entitled to qualified immunity on Williams's Fourth Amendment claim. See id.; see also United States v.

M. D. Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Company

511 F.2d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 1975

Clearly no abuse of judicial discretion occurred in the denial of the Rule 6(b) motion. … The record fully supports that conclusion, and the proffered former testimony clearly does not qualify for admission in evidence under § 1291(a)(2).

United States v. Carl Martin Brandenfels

522 F.2d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 13, 1975

He testified that Grove had previously told him that he (Grove) had established a $1,000,000 line of credit for Brandenfels through a concern called Western Investors. … As a consequence, Chambers is clearly distinguishable from this case.