Case law

Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

541 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 3, 2008

The text of the Copyright Act establishes by syllogism that the first sale doctrine of § 109(a) limits § 602(a): First, given that § 106(3) is “subject to sections 107 through 122” and § 109 falls within the designated portion … Other parts of § 109 qualify the first sale doctrine of § 109(a), see generally 17 U.S.C. § 109 , but the parties do not argue that any of those limiting provisions apply. 4 .

Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Cross-Appellant

712 F.2d 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 1983

The magistrate system does not qualify under this provision. … The first is whether the holding in question decided an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed by earlier cases.

Rendleman v. Shalala

21 F.3d 957 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Instead, Rendleman started a clinic in another location not yet designated an HMSA, although it apparently qualified for and later received such a designation. Rendleman I, 860 F.2d at 1542 . … Regarding Rendleman’s earnings potential, the agency noted that Rendleman “clearly has the potential to greatly increase his income in the future.”

United States v. Raymond P. Novak

476 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 22, 2007

The Senate Report accompanying the 1997 amendment clearly expressed this belief. … If that is Congress's intent, Guidry tells us that it must be clearly expressed.

Bonilla v. City of San Diego

993 F.2d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 29, 1993

Id. at 255 . 11 The defendants claim qualified immunity. … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must establish first that the defendants' actions violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable officer would have been aware, and second, that a reasonable

Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.

97 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 1996

They disagree, however, on the question whether the plaintiffs qualify for benefits under the terms of the plan. … Clearly, it would be inconsistent to review under an abuse of discretion standard and then to apply the rule of contra proferentem.

County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc.

540 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 27, 2008

We are therefore persuaded that the PPA, on its face, was clearly intended to benefit the covered entities directly. … The PPA establishes different discounts for other classes of drugs that are not relevant here. See PPA §§ II(b)-(c). 5 .

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

673 F.3d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 13, 2011

Avoiding wooden permitting requirements and granting states flexibility in setting forth requirements is not equivalent to immunizing municipalities for stormwater discharges that violate the provisions of a permit. B. … However, the declarations on which Plaintiffs rely do not clearly indicate that the sampling in question was conducted at an outflow (as opposed to in-stream).

Pottgieser ex rel. Estate of Pottgieser v. Kizer

906 F.2d 1319 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 1990

. §§ 401-433 (“Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance”), establishes basic social security retirement benefits. … We must next determine whether Congress has “clearly expressed” a contrary legislative intent. Citizens Action League, 887 F.2d at 1006 (citation omitted).

Berkeley Pump Co. v. Jacuzzi Bros., Inc

214 F.2d 785 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 30, 1954

Therefore we have examined the record on appeal to determine whether or not it clearly establishes that the Berkeley device meets the' rigid standards of invention we must apply, in default of which it must be regarded as … If the evidence clearly establishes that the device is of the type just above described, it obviously lacks the quality of invention.

Grand Canyon Dories, Inc. v. Idaho Outfitters And Guides Board

709 F.2d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 1983

Moreover, "courts are not to seek out conflicts between state and federal regulation where none clearly exist." Pacific Legal Foundation v. … The Court found that the Secretary of Transportation is authorized expressly to regulate vessel size and that he had acted to establish a size limitation in Puget Sound.

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Oregon Bureau of Labor

122 F.3d 812 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 14, 1997

Its payment, from general assets, qualifies as a payroll practice under the plain words of the regulation. … There the Court observed that extensive state regulation actually afforded more protection of vacation benefits than ERISA, and it was reluctant to cause their preemption when Congress did not clearly require it.

Luis Mujica v. Airscan Inc.

771 F.3d 580 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 12, 2014

But the Court held that this situation did not qualify as a “true conflict,” explaining that “[n]o conflict exists, for these purposes, where a person subject to regulation by two states can comply with the laws of both.” … In light of' the forcefully expressed views of the State Department, we conclude that that point has clearly been reached in this case. 2.

Olympic Club v. Those Interested Underwriters At Lloyd's London

991 F.2d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 1993

Accordingly, the defense costs for the state litigation do not qualify as "losses" covered by Endorsement # 2 of the policy. … Following policy set by another, even if the policymaker is one's employer, does not endow a wrongdoer with personal immunity from liability.

Jarvis v. Regan

833 F.2d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 27, 1987

Accordingly, the LSC is authorized to distribute funds by grant or contract to qualified legal aid organizations. 42 U.S.C. § 2996e(a). … Clearly, the issuance of an injunction would not serve any remedial purpose, since the complained-of conduct occurred prior to the 1980 election.

United States v. Kittson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 2025

He asserts that the “plain language” of the statute establishes that the word “transfer” in § 922(o)(2)(A) covers his “transfer” in this case, so he is in the clear. … But it is hard to see how immunizing defendants like Kittson could help stem the interstate transfer of machineguns.

labor/community v. L.A. County Metro

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 2009

First, BRU must establish that a “signifi- cant change either in factual conditions or in the law” occurred after execution of the decree. See Asarco, 430 F.3d at 979. … Whether we apply the clearly erroneous standard or a de novo standard is therefore irrelevant. 5230 LABOR/COMMUNITY v. L.A.

United States v. Ronald Keith Baker, United States of America v. Robert Majors

25 F.3d 1452 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

If in the process of the takeover Union acquired all of California First’s claims, Union clearly qualified as a victim under Smith . However, it is the government’s burden to establish the loss sustained by a victim. … Because the government has “written plea agreements in the past which clearly” include a promise by the defendant to pay restitution for unconvicted offenses (as in Soderling), we cannot read the plea agreement in this case

Retirement Fund Trust of the Plumbing, Etc. v. Franchise Tax Board

909 F.2d 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 16, 1990

They are not contrary to other law. 76 The regulations are also consistent with Congress’ overall intent in establishing the ERISA scheme. … The Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3405 , "Special Rules for Pension, Annuities, and Certain Other Deferred Income," describes qualified pension plans. 26(a) U.S.C. § 3405(a)(l)-(2) establish optional withholding from

William Breck v. Roger Doyle

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 2019

The Individual Defendants may well be entitled to various forms of federally- 5 recognized common-law immunities, such as judicial or qualified immunity. … See Will, 491 U.S. at 67 (“[I]n enacting § 1983, Congress did not intend to override well-established immunities or defenses under the common law.”); see also Hirsh v.