Case law

Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co.

284 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 30, 1960

Justice Holmes said: 'But the word 'right' is one of the most deceptive of pitfalls; it is so easy to slip from a qualified meaning in the premise to an unqualified one in the conclusion.' 8 98 We speak here only of decisions … be established as a direct and proximate result of defendant's violation of the Sherman Act with reasonable certainty.

United States v. Jones

176 F.2d 278 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 24, 1949

The trial court found that there was “no substantial evidence to establish their value at the time of the sale.” … But- at the present time; the consensus is that conclusive presumptions do not establish a rule of evidence, but declare a rule of substantive law.

Stanley D. Cochran Dean Anderson v. City of Los Angeles

222 F.3d 1195 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 17, 2000

City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867, 875 (9th Cir.1998) (“Mere threats and harsh words are insufficient [to establish adverse employment action].”); Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. … Appellees did not appeal the denial of qualified immunity and we do not address the objective reasonableness of the employer’s action.

Richard Beierle v. United States

400 F.2d 128 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 1968

which were the following: “This Local Board will furnish transportation, and meals and lodging when necessary, from the place of reporting designated above to the induction station where you will be examined and, if found qualified … Two important facts are clearly established: (1) Beierle was originally under a duty to submit to induction on or sometime after January 31, 1966, and (2) he refused to submit to induction on January 27, 1966.

International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Lubbers

681 F.2d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 13, 1982

. §§ 702 , 704 (1976), which establish the general policy of the Act favoring review of administrative actions. … Appellant points to no express provision in the labor acts which the General Counsel’s decision clearly violates. Thus, the first exception is inapplicable to this case.

Wayne Adair v. City Of Kirkland

185 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 1999

. 23 The officers also argue that the City does not qualify for a 7(k) exemption because it failed to keep records as mandated by 29 C.F.R. … While the officers argue that the issue is preserved for appeal because it was necessarily decided by the court below, this is clearly incorrect.

Global Master Intl Group, Inc. v. Esmond Natural, Inc.

76 F.4th 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 11, 2023

Thus, to establish statutory standing, a civil RICO plaintiff must show: “(1) that his alleged harm qualifies as injury to his business or property; and (2) that his harm was by reason of the RICO violation, which requires … the plaintiff to establish proximate causation.”

Drew v. Scribner

252 F. App'x 815 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 2007

The trial court also found Drew had a prior conviction that qualified as a “strike” under CaLPenal Code §§ 667(a) and 667(b)-(i). Drew was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 51 years. … Thus, the California Court of Appeal’s denial of Drew’s state habeas petition was not contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the

Katuria E. Smith v. Tyson Marsh

194 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 1, 1999

immunity. … "An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court bases its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact." Coalition for Economic Equity v.

Blankenship v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston

486 F.3d 620 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 2007

The lump-sum payment could be distributed directly to Blankenship, or he could elect to "roll it over into an IRA or other tax qualified vehicle." … However, the IRC is clearly relevant; it provides the backdrop for Liberty Life's arguments.

Dimitri Shivkov v. Artex Risk Solutions, Inc.

974 F.3d 1051 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 9, 2020

Instead, the clause here appears in and concerns only the insular terms established by the “Termination and Withdrawal” section. … Ctr., LP, 246 P.3d at 942 (“[B]ecause specific contract provisions express the parties’ intent more precisely than general provisions, specific provisions qualify the meaning of general provisions.”). 9 Treating the Clause

Xiao Ma v. Jefferson Sessions, III

907 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 2018

. § 274a.12(b)(20) does not confer lawful immigration status for purposes of establishing eligibility for status adjustment under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(k)(2). … Accordingly, the BIA concluded that Ma was without lawful status from August 5, 2006 to July 2, 2007, a period of over 180 days, which precluded Ma from establishing his eligibility for adjustment of status.

Lester Ochoa v. Ron Davis

16 F.4th 1314 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 1, 2021

DAVIS 49 unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because there was no clearly established federal law holding that suppression hearing testimony cannot be considered by a trial … an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marty WEBB, Defendant-Appellant

115 F.3d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 9, 1997

"Evidence of this kind may be sufficient alone to establish a perpetrator's identity. See United States v. … Estelle, 948 F.2d 1497 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that admission of testimony which denominated appellant's modus operandi in previously uncharged and charged crimes was not clearly erroneous) Evidence of individual modus operandi

Manuel Olivas-Motta v. Eric Holder, Jr.

716 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 2013

Silva-Trevino establishes a three-step analysis. At the first step, applying Taylor v. … The Attorney General’s new definition conflicts with a clear and long-established definition of “conviction.”

Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

80 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 1996

“Generally, a district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous view of the facts.” Id. … Suitum contends that Kaleta’s experience as a TRPA regulator qualifies him to testify as to the value of her development rights.

Delta Mechanical, Inc. v. Garden City Group, Inc.

345 F. App'x 232 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2009

A party is a third-party beneficiary to a contract if the terms of the contract “clearly express intent to benefit that party or an identifiable class of which the party is a member.” Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. … There can be no doubt that Delta qualifies as “authorized service personnel.”

Charles Guenther v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

972 F.3d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 2020

understood the effect of the Plan Amendment (i.e., his prior credited service would not bridge under the Plan), and this understanding clearly conflicted with LMC’s representations during employment negotiations and in the … This qualifies as actual knowledge for purposes of Section 1113.

Leslie Feldman v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Ofc.

842 F.3d 613 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 2016

For the reasons discussed below, the district court’s factual determination that this evidence failed to establish the requisite link was not clearly erroneous. … As such, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude that Feldman failed to establish that this Gingles factor turned in her favor.

In Re MH

648 F.3d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 2011

The Government is not required to justify the issuance of a grand jury subpoena by presenting evidence sufficient to establish probable cause because the very purpose of its inquiry is to establish whether probable cause … Because M.H.’s Fifth Amendment privilege is not implicated, we need not address his request for immunity.