Case law

James McKinney v. Charles Ryan

730 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2013

In other words, “‘[i]t is not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme Court].’” … RYAN a decision that “was contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Otha CALVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

782 F.2d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1986

I The Social Security Act provides benefits to qualified individuals who are disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 423 (a)(1) (1982). … As the Secretary treats this factor, a person’s ability to adapt or adjust is clearly a fact relating to the individual claimant and not one relating to the national labor market: “Where age is critical to a decision, recognition

Stephen Deck v. Mack Jenkins

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 9, 2016

If anything, clearly established Supreme Court precedent supports the CCA’s application. … Ct. at 2153 (“The ‘clearly established Federal law’ relevant here is our decision in Darden v. Wainwright . . . .”).

Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Grange

676 F.3d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2012

Such statements do not establish that members of the media or elected officials are confused about these candidates’ party affiliations, however. … qualify for a general election ballot by filing a required number of petition signatures.

Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 31, 2006

Such assistance to one known to have committed a felony is clearly con- trary to the accepted rules owed between members of society. … None of the other docu- ments in the record of conviction establish the factual basis for Navarro-Lopez’s plea.

United States v. Jairo MacHiche AKA Jairo MacHiche

286 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 18, 2002

McKenzie, 193 F.3d 740, 742 (3rd Cir.1999) (holding that a defendant who was sentenced to more than one year for a prior aggravated felony did not qualify for a Note 5 reduction); United States v. … Application Note 5 clearly considers the minor nature of a predicate felony as a proper basis for departure; however, only defendants that meet all three Note 5 requirements possess criminal histories that fall outside the

United States v. Kenneth Joe Whitten, John Elmer Gaiefsky, Jack Wayne Gish, Richard Lawrence Shimel

706 F.2d 1000 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 25, 1983

The district court’s finding that there was probable cause to search both houses was not clearly erroneous. United States v. … That finding was not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Johnson

30 F. App'x 685 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 2002

The government presented evidence that the handwriting expert was experienced and well-qualified, and his qualifications were subject to examination by defense counsel. … The testimony was clearly relevant to Johnson’s involvement in the alien smuggling scheme. It was not an abuse of discretion *689 for the district court to admit the testimony of the handwriting expert.

United States v. Mary Dann and Carrie Dann

706 F.2d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 19, 1983

Indeed it may be that aboriginally held lands do not qualify as “unappropriated public lands,” in which case the executive is not entitled to grant homesteads from them. See Cramer v. … as one or a few such ranches are established.

Michael Hayes v. Rachel Nettles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2022

Moreover, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Hayes, it would have been clear to every reasonable official that defendants’ actions violated Hayes … See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 741 3 20-35994 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly established

Linda Marie Zambrano, and Jose E. Tafolla, Esq. Philip W. Orr, Esq., Claimants-Appellants v. City of Tustin David Kreyling

885 F.2d 1473 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 21, 1989

Section 2071 provides that the “Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business.” 17 Under this provision, the federal courts may establish … Conclusion We do not suggest that under other circumstances lawyers who fail to apply for membership in the district court bar will be immune from sanctions.

Arthur N. ARONSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROWN ZELLERBACH, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee

662 F.2d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1981

Our decision in Bean so held, rejecting the interpretation that a grievant first must commence state proceedings within the 180 day period of section 626(d)(1) in order to qualify for the 300 day filing period of section … Indeed, the Court in Mohasco clearly indicated its disagreement with Cic-cone by equating it with Olson.

National Wildlife Federation v. United States Forest Service

861 F.2d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 14, 1988

Documents need not themselves be "deliberative," in the sense that they make nonbinding recommendations on law or policy, in order to qualify for the deliberative process privilege. … Indeed, as the Senate Committee Report explains, FOIA's purpose is "to establish a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language...." S.Rep.

Nedds v. Calderon

678 F.3d 777 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 4, 2012

Under Harris, Nedds’ actions consistent with later overturned prece- dent qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance.” Id. at 1057. … While Lakey does establish that a petitioner who clearly did not rely on our precedent in timing his petition is not entitled to equi- table tolling, it does not establish the opposite—that a peti- tioner must make an affirmative

United States v. Nobari

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 2009

Specifically, clearly established federal law provides that such prosecu- torial conduct “violates a criminal defendant’s due process and equal protection rights.” Bains v. … “Our caselaw, and that of other circuits, establishes that this is an impermissible syllo- gism.” Id.

In Re Badger Mountain Irrigation District, Debtor. Badger Mountain Irrigation District Secured Bondholders' Committee v. Badger Mountain Irrigation District, Badger Mountain Irrigation District Secured Bondholders' Committee v. Badger Mountain Irrigation District

885 F.2d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 6, 1989

The Bondholders argue that the District's power to levy and collect assessments from landowners within the District constitutes an equitable servitude, and thus qualifies as "property" within the meaning of section 87.03.215 … This repeal clearly followed the filing of the suit and those events upon which the suit is based. Although the district court relied on this provision in its opinion, the parties do not cite it on appeal.

United States v. Roberto Lopez

747 F.3d 1141 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 2, 2014

It is undisputed that Agent Harris was not at the Nogales border when Lopez was removed; nor was Harris qualified as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. … The district court clearly erred by admitting Agent Harris’s lay opinion on the ultimate question before the jury.

Luis Juarez Alvarado v. Eric Holder, Jr.

759 F.3d 1121 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 23, 2014

DISCUSSION We analyze whether a conviction qualifies as a predicate offense for removal purposes by employing the framework the Supreme Court constructed in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). … Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (en banc) (holding that when intervening authority from a court of last resort “is clearly irreconcilable with our prior circuit authority,” both “a three-judge panel

Robert Thomas v. Oregon State Police

656 F. App'x 273 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 14, 2016

In any case, the district court did not err in concluding at the close of evidence that Vaughn was entitled to qualified immunity. … Thomas points to no “clearly established” law that every reasonable trooper in Vaughn’s position would know that it was unconstitutional to detain Thomas for 40–45 minutes while he diligently conducted an investigation

Anderson v. Terhune

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2008

There is no clearly established federal law mandating a particular amount of time the break in the interrogation must last. … Therefore, even if we could grant habeas relief in the absence of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, I would deny the petition.