Case law

United States v. William Douglas Lomow

266 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 2001

For example, Lomow established post office boxes *1018 for his sham companies. … In this case, the parties did not brief the issue of who had the burden of proof, and the district court did not clearly indicate either way on which party it placed the burden.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno

747 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 31, 2014

The lowest interest rate at which the entire issue can be sold at par establishes the new interest rate to be paid until the next auction. This new interest rate is known as the “clearing rate.” … With this definition in mind, we find that Reno easily qualifies as Goldman’s “customer.” To finance a series of city projects, Reno issued approximately $211 million in ARS bonds.

Zimmerman v. Bishop Estate

25 F.3d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 1994

It is clear that Zimmerman, a perennial candidate for office and a gadfly, was a nuisance to the establishment, to Bishop Estate, and to a number of Hawaiian governmental entities. … All the interrogatories specifically relied on by the district court readily qualify under this standard.

United States v. Frank A. M. Luca

183 F.3d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 1999

Age standing alone, however, does not establish someone -as a specific victim. Here, the district court made insufficient findings to support an age-based enhancement. … Moreover, Luca clearly used his victims’ faith to target investors.

David Clinton Hatton v. Edward Bonner

356 F.3d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 2004

Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-74 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (discussing “clearly established Federal law” prong of statutory standard). … Thus, the California Court of Appeal did not determine the facts unreasonably, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2), nor did it unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, id. § 2254(d)(1). AFFIRMED. 1 .

Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corporation

162 F.2d 354 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1947

The testimony of the expert witnesses clearly establishes that the picture’s value has been lessened by the appropriation of an important sequence by the appellants, and it is common knowledge that the repeated use of comedy … The court found that they were qualified to testify, and these witnesses gave considerable testimony on the losses held to have been caused by the infringement.

Currier v. Potter

379 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 2004

In Meyer , the Court explained that 16 The first inquiry is whether there has been a waiver of sovereign immunity. … Here, the parties do not dispute that 39 U.S.C. § 401 (1) 6 enacts a broad waiver of sovereign immunity for the Postal Service.

United States v. James Milton Cotten and William Lowell Roberts

471 F.2d 744 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 16, 1973

United States, 6 in which the Supreme Court of the United States has established standards for the fair administration of criminal justice. … To conclude otherwise would be clearly erroneous.

Tamara Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.

966 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 28, 2020

The non-prescription dog food was also marketed to “[p]romote[] balanced urinary pH” and “a healthier immune system [and] urinary tract,” 4 The Final CPG is published at 81 Fed.Reg. 26,236–01. … “[A]ny plaintiff who has standing under the UCL’s and FAL’s ‘lost money or property’ requirement will, a fortiori, have suffered ‘any damage’ for purposes of establishing CLRA standing.”

Building Industry Ass'n v. Washington State Building Code Council

683 F.3d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2012

The district court considered the Defendants’ evidence after it found Eckman qualified to offer expert opinion regarding energy efficiency modeling. … This finding is supported by the expert declarations and is not clearly erroneous.

National Federation of the Blind v. United Airlines Inc.

813 F.3d 718 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2016

In any event, Rowe is certainly not so “clearly irreconcilable” with Charas as to allow a three-judge panel to overrule a prior en banc decision of this court. See Miller v. … a qualified individual with a disability to accept special services ... that the individual does not request”; “not [to] exclude a qualified individual with a disability from or deny the person the benefit of any air transportation

United States v. Fernandez

388 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 27, 2004

Despite the dispute between two factions within the organization, therefore, the evidence clearly established a single Eme enterprise. 2. … The magistrate judge’s conclusion that the Spencer affidavit established probable cause to search the Rambler residence was not clearly erroneous.

In the Matter of Golinski

587 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 19, 2009

The third option is clearly inappropriate. Forcing an employee to endlessly litigate the same claim would be unjust and wasteful of the court’s EDR resources. … I also conclude that my prior order qualifies as a "correction of the personnel action,” 5 U.S.C. § 5596 (b)(1)(A), for purposes of the Back Pay Act.

Marie Ballentine, as Guardian of the Estate of Stephen William Ballentine v. Marie De Sylva, Marie De Sylva v. Marie Ballentine, as Guardian of the Estate of Stephen William Ballentine

226 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 1955

The commentator gives no meaning whatever to the qualifying phrases. … The trial court found, as we have said, that the subject illegitimate child does so qualify.

United States v. Samuel Orozco-Acosta

607 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 26, 2010

Orozco-Acosta attacks the underlying premise of Bahena- Cardenas, arguing that warrants of removal qualify as testi- monial because they are “made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe … [7] In sum, nothing in Melendez-Diaz is clearly irreconcil- able with Bahena-Cardenas’s holding that a warrant of removal is “nontestimonial because it was not made in antici- pation of litigation.” 411 F.3d at 1075.

Joseph E. Curlott, and Cross-Appellants v. Alan Campbell, and Cross-Appellees

598 F.2d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 1979

The Supreme Court defined a “property interest” as follows: *1181 To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. … The Act oper *1182 ates as a waiver of sovereign immunity to provide complete monetary relief to the Employees. See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 405-07 , 96 S.Ct. 948 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976).

Rosales v. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 20, 2025

Arguments not raised clearly and distinctly in the opening brief are forfeited, and so we do not review the sanction amount. See Avila v. … [J]oinder of the [Village] is unfeasible because it is immune from this suit under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity.”). 4 The reasonable inquiry analysis applies even though Plaintiffs originally filed suit in

Padilla v. Lever

463 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 18, 2006

That a claim is not frivolous does not establish that it is meritorious. … [10] It distorts § 1973aa-1a to apply it in a situation for which it clearly is not intended.

United States v. Albert Hernandez, Jr.

894 F.3d 1104 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Under this definition, Hernandez’s conduct qualified as “distribution.” … calculate the Guidelines Range or calculating the range incorrectly; treating the Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory; failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); imposing a sentence based on clearly

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Wayne FREDERICK, Defendant-Appellant

78 F.3d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 5, 1996

Hodges, 770 F.2d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir.1985) (“[Questions of credibility are for the jury to decide and are generally immune from appellate review.”). … The prosecutor’s impermissible remarks could have helped to establish S.F.’s credibility in the minds of the jury, thus affecting their verdict.