FindLaw: Laws: Cases and Codes: All Circuit Courts Opinions

US Supreme Court All Circuit Courts 1st Circuit Court 2nd Circuit Court 3rd Circuit Court 4th Circuit Court 5th Circuit Court 6th Circuit Court 7th Circuit Court 8th Circuit Court 9th Circuit Court 10th Circuit Court 11th Circuit Court Fed Circuit Court DC Circuit Court [options]

 

Recent Federal Case Law:

 

Court of Appeals Decisions  

1st Circuit   2nd Circuit   3rd Circuit   4th Circuit   5th Circuit   6th Circuit   7th Circuit

8th Circuit   9th Circuit   10th Circuit   11th Circuit   DC Circuit   Federal Circuit

Court Directories   - phone numbers and addresses

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces   - includes opinions and extensive information on the court.

Federal District Court Opinions  

Bankruptcy Court Opinions  

United States Tax Court   Includes Tax Court opinions since January 1, 1999, Tax Court Rules, and other information.

United States Court of Federal Claims   decisions since 1997, hosted by the Department of Commerce.
United States Court of Federal Claims   decisions since 1997, hosted George Washington University School of Law

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals   - includes decisions, rules, biographies of the judges.

U.S. Court for International Trade  

Introductory Materials   background on the federal court system as well as historical documents.

Statistics on Federal Court Cases - Data on litigation from Professors Eisenberg and Clermont of the Cornell Law School.

Federal Judiciary Homepage   maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

The Third Branch   newsletter of the federal courts published monthly by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

US State Laws: Cases and Codes  

 

U.S. Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit Court Opinions -  Selected Case Summaries:

News! (December 27, 1999)  No Insurance for 'Video Voyeurism'
An insurance company is under no obligation to defend the owners of a marina who videotaped female customers and employees in a shower room and then showed the tapes in a local bar, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. A unanimous, three-judge panel reversed a lower court's finding that the marina owners never intended to make the videotapes public and therefore did not intentionally inflict emotional distress. (New York Law Journal -- Read the story.)

U.S. Court of Appeal 3rd Circuit Court Opinions -  Selected Case Summaries:

News! (January 4, 2000) 3rd Circuit Tosses 'Garden Variety' Torts out of Realm of Civil RICO
A civil RICO case cannot be based on state law claims of theft by deception or tortious interference with contract since they are not among the law's enumerated "predicate acts," the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. "If garden-variety state law crimes, torts and contract breaches were to constitute predicate acts of racketeering -- along with mail and wire fraud -- civil RICO law, which is already a behemoth, would swallow state civil and criminal law whole," Chief Judge Edward R. Becker wrote. (The Legal Intelligencer -- Read the story.)

News! (January 3, 2000) 3rd Cir.: First Amendment Trumps Wiretap Laws
When a cell phone conversation is intercepted, taped, and anonymously given to someone who then gives it to a radio station for broadcast, the callers can't sue the station or the supplier of the tape since they played no role in the interception, a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled. The ruling creates a split in the federal circuits given a decision by the D.C. Circuit allowing a suit against a Democratic Congressman who gave The New York Times a tape of a call among House Republicans. (The Legal Intelligencer -- Read the story.

News! (December 30, 1999) Nazi's Deportation Upheld by 3rd Circuit
An alleged Nazi concentration camp guard's attempt to fight a deportation order has been denied by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling, upholding a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, means that Nikolaus Schiffer could be the first native-born American ever deported. Schiffer, a retired baker, was born in Philadelphia and moved to Romania at the age of one. In 1941, Schiffer joined the Romanian Army and later joined a Nazi SS unit known as the "Death's Head Battalion." (The Legal Intelligencer -- Read the story.)

U.S. Court of Appeal 5th Circuit Court Opinions -  Selected Case Summaries:

News! (October 25, 1999)  Fifth Circuit Narrows Definition of Prevailing Party
A 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling makes it harder to win fees as a prevailing party, lawyers say. The court barred a fee award for lawyers who filed a Voting Rights Act challenge to Dallas County, Texas' procedure for appointing election judges. The court found that the plaintiffs did not prevail even though the Texas legislature passed a law changing the appointment method after the suit was filed and the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a dismissal of the suit. (Texas Lawyer -- Read the story.)

U.S. Court of Appeal 9th Circuit Court Opinions -  Selected Case Summaries: 

LABOR, EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW

McLEAN v. RUNYON (8/25/00 No. 99-35237)

District court properly reduced damage award for unlawful discrimination by the amount plaintiff collected in federal workers compensation benefits, because plaintiff was made whole and defendant did not reap a windfall. 

To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9935237.html

 

U.S. 9th Circuit Court Opinions

Cases of Aug 2000: First v. second party [Revert]

 

• ABOGADOS v AT&T
  No. 9856988 - 08/02/00
• ADLER v THE FED REPUB OF NIGERIA
  No. 9855456v2 - 08/17/00
• ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. v CITY OF LOS ANGELES
  No. 9856200v2 - 08/28/00
• ALBILLO-FIGUEROA v INS
  No. 9871239 - 08/04/00
• ALFARO-REYES v INS
  No. 9770443 - 08/03/00
• ASSOC. OF WESTERN PULP & PAPER v REXAM GRAPHIC
  No. 9935862 - 08/08/00
• BAKER v CITY OF BLAINE
  No. 9835378v2 - 08/09/00
• BANCROFT & MASTERS, INC. v AUGUSTA NATIONAL INC.
  No. 9915099 - 08/18/00
• BARAPIND v RENO
  No. 9916668 - 08/28/00
• BEATY v BET HOLDINGS, INC.
  No. 9955027 - 08/24/00
• BINS v EXXON
  No. 9855662v2 - 08/10/00
• BLAIR v CITY OF POMONA
  No. 9855548v2 - 08/02/00
• BROWN v SMITH
  No. 9915742 - 08/25/00
• CATO v FRESNO CITY
  No. 9617245 - 08/17/00
• CHAND v INS
  No. 9870541 - 08/02/00
• CHOI v GASTON
  No. 9856854 - 08/08/00
• COCHRAN v CITY OF L.A.
  No. 9856834 - 08/17/00
• DELGADO v LEWIS
  No. 9756162v3 - 08/23/00
• EEOC v DINUBA MEDICAL CLINIC
  No. 9816454 - 08/24/00
• ELLIS v ARMENAKIS
  No. 9935285 - 08/25/00
• ETS-HOKIN v SKYY SPIRITS, INC.
  No. 9817072 - 08/18/00
• FIRST PACIFIC BANCORP, INC. v HELFER
  No. 9855634 - 08/08/00
• FREINDS OF CLEARWATER v DOMBECK
  No. 9935642 - 08/16/00
• GARCIA v INS
  No. 9970206 - 08/22/00
• GILMORE v USA
  No. 9815198 - 08/04/00
• HERNANDEZ-MONTIEL v INS
  No. 9870582 - 08/24/00
• IDAHO SPORTING CONGRESS v ALEXANDER
  No. 9935847 - 08/17/00
• IN RE JONATHAN WILSON FILLBACH
  No. 9915958 - 08/18/00
• JAMES v GILES
  No. 9856751 - 08/04/00
• JENSEN v LANE COUNTY
  No. 9835866 - 08/23/00
• JIMINEZ v RICE
  No. 9915574 - 08/22/00
• KADJEVICH v KADJEVICH
  No. 9915367 - 08/08/00
• KF DAIRIES, INC.. & AFFILIATES v FIREMAN'S FUND
  No. 9755941 - 08/25/00
• LA CROSSE v KERNAN
  No. 9755085o - 08/23/00
• LABELGRAPHICS v CIR
  No. 9970164 - 08/08/00
• LAMBRIGHT v STEWART
  No. 9699020v3 - 08/04/00
• LIM v CITY OF LONG BEACH
  No. 9855915o - 08/23/00
• LIM v INS
  No. 9870683 - 08/29/00
• LOBATZ v US WEST CELLULAR
  No. 9955385 - 08/25/00
• LORENSTEN v HOOD
  No. 9935147 - 08/11/00
• LUGAN-ARMENDARIZ v INS
  No. 9670431 - 08/01/00
• LUU-LE v INS
  No. 9770595 - 08/03/00
• MANNING v FOSTER
  No. 9735664 - 08/22/00
• MATTHEWS v OREGON ST. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
  No. 9836218o - 08/14/00
• MCCARTHY v APFEL
  No. 9815238 - 08/15/00
• MCCLEAN v RUNYON
  No. 9935237 - 08/25/00
• NEARY v PADILLA
  No. 9855099 - 08/14/00
• NEWMAN v APFEL
  No. 9856397 - 08/02/00
• PATTERSON v GOMEZ
  No. 9915530 - 08/16/00
• PEREZ v RARDIN
  No. 9856048 - 08/10/00
• PLETZ v USA
  No. 9935248 - 08/10/00
• ROOSEVELT v RAY
  No. 9855965 - 08/10/00
• RUBIN v STATE FARM
  No. 9816961o - 08/21/00
• SALMON v CARILLO
  No. 9655707o - 08/02/00
• SANDY v RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE
  No. 9955366 - 08/22/00
• SCHNEIDER v COMM SOCIAL SECURITY
  No. 9935634 - 08/21/00
• SHAH v INS
  No. 9870845 - 08/15/00
• SHUMWAY v PAYNE
  No. 9935726 - 08/24/00
• SMITH v KENNEDY
  No. 9856795 - 08/08/00
• SPIRTOS v MORENO
  No. 9855101 - 08/04/00
• THOMAS v ANCHORAGE EQUAL RIGHTS
  No. 9735220v2 - 08/04/00
• UNOCAL v USA
  No. 9955342 - 08/07/00
• USA v 103 ELECTRONIC GAMING
  No. 9915675 - 08/29/00
• USA v ALATORRE
  No. 9950587 - 08/16/00
• USA v CABRERA
  No. 9910162 - 08/24/00
• USA v CARTER
  No. 9950388 - 08/09/00
• USA v ERTSGAARD
  No. 9930242 - 08/25/00
• USA v GALIN
  No. 9950356 - 08/23/00
• USA v GRANVILLE
  No. 9810491 - 08/28/00
• USA v HATTON
  No. 9835248 - 08/10/00
• USA v HAYNES
  No. 9830221v2 - 08/15/00
• USA v HENKE
  No. 9910015 - 08/25/00
• USA v KAFKA, III
  No. 9930305 - 08/23/00
• USA v KNIGHTS
  No. 9910538 - 08/03/00
• USA v LAVENDER
  No. 9950275 - 08/29/00
• USA v MICHAEL
  No. 9910365 - 08/17/00
• USA v NANTHANSENG
  No. 9930137 - 08/07/00
• USA v NELSON
  No. 9910127 - 08/16/00
• USA v NERBER
  No. 9930161 - 08/24/00
• USA v NUNEZ
  No. 9850084 - 08/16/00
• USA v PENA-GUTIERREZ
  No. 9950057 - 08/11/00
• USA v RIVERA-SANCHEZ
  No. 9910243 - 08/02/00
• USA v SESMA-HERNANDEZ
  No. 9910491 - 08/02/00
• USA v TADEO
  No. 9910519 - 08/25/00
• USA v TALAO
  No. 9910351 - 08/23/00
• USA v TWILLEY
  No. 9950338 - 08/14/00
• USA v VALENSIA
  No. 9910170 - 08/01/00
• USA v ZAMORA-HERNANDEZ
  No. 9950068 - 08/02/00
• VILLAS v UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE
  No. 9856261v2 - 08/11/00
• WETLANDS v US ARMY CORPS
  No. 9856242 - 08/21/00

Cases of July 2000: First v. second party [Revert]

• AAMC v USA
  No. 9856190 - 07/11/00
• ABOVIAN v INS
  No. 9870934 - 07/19/00
• AGBUYA v INS
  No. 9870965 - 07/18/00
• ALAMEDA BOOKS v CITY OF LOS ANGELES
  No. 9856200 - 07/27/00
• ALARCON v INS
  No. 9970578 - 07/25/00
• ALEMAN v GLICKMAN
  No. 9816893 - 07/17/00
• ANDREWS v TRW, INC.
  No. 9856624 - 07/17/00
• ARROW ELECTRONICS v JUSTUS
  No. 9955206 - 07/13/00
• BASS v ST PAUL FIRE
  No. 9715127 - 07/14/00
• BATEMAN v U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
  No. 9915394 - 07/26/00
• BENCI-WOODWARD v CIR
  No. 9970136 - 07/18/00
• BIG HORN v ADAMS
  No. 9935799 - 07/14/00
• BIRTH HOPE v ARIZONA HEALTH
  No. 9916057 - 07/12/00
• BRAUNLING v COUNTRYWIDE
  No. 9856929 - 07/21/00
• CEDIC DEVELOPMENT v WARNICKE
  No. 9915841 - 07/26/00
• CHOUCHKOV v INS
  No. 9870687 - 07/20/00
• COLUMBIA RIVER PEOPLE'S UTILITY v PORTLAND
  No. 9935411 - 07/17/00
• COMPTON v QUEEN CITY BANK
  No. 9856701 - 07/11/00
• CORNEJO BARRETO v SIEFERT
  No. 9856827 - 07/11/00
• COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ v CERVANTES
  No. 9915441 - 07/18/00
• COUVEAU v AMERICAN AIRLINES
  No. 9955032 - 07/17/00
• CUSTOM CHROME v CIR
  No. 9871378 - 07/10/00
• DEGEORGE v U.S. DISTRICT COURT
  No. 9971446 - 07/18/00
• DEPPE v UNITED AIRLINES
  No. 9817382 - 07/11/00
• DEVEREAUX v ABBEY
  No. 9735781 - 07/12/00
• DIAMOND v TAFT
  No. 9817253v2 - 07/26/00
• DISALVO v DISALVO
  No. 9856166 - 07/14/00
• DURAN v CITY OF MAYWOOD
  No. 9755262 - 07/11/00
• EISINGER v FLRA
  No. 9870866 - 07/17/00
• EL PASO CITY v AMERICA WEST
  No. 9816918 - 07/11/00
• EXXON MOBIL v EPA
  No. 9970945 - 07/07/00
• FAVISH v OIC
  No. 9855594 - 07/12/00
• FIELDER v UAL CORP
  No. 9835511 - 07/10/00
• FIRESTONE v SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
  No. 9856468 - 07/19/00
• GORBACH v RENO
  No. 9835723v2 - 07/20/00
• GRACIE v GRACIE
  No. 9815672 - 07/06/00
• GREEN v CITY OF TUSCON
  No. 9915625 - 07/06/00
• IN RE: ELMAR LEE PETTIT
  No. 9915413 - 07/06/00
• IN RE: NAT'L ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE
  No. 9855597v2 - 07/27/00
• JOHN v USA
  No. 0035121o - 07/14/00
• KENNEDY v SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
  No. 9856157 - 07/20/00
• KIBLER v WALTERS
  No. 9835536o - 07/20/00
• KORTAN v CALIF YOUTH AUTHORITY
  No. 9856047 - 07/07/00
• KOZULIN v INS
  No. 9970162 - 07/14/00
• LARITA MARTINEZ v INS
  No. 9871452 - 07/21/00
• LIEBOWITZ v COUNTY OF ORANGE
  No. 9955503 - 07/06/00
• MACFARLANE v WALTER
  No. 9735725o - 07/07/00
• MACIAS v IHDE
  No. 9915662 - 07/20/00
• MBNA AMERICA v LOCKE
  No. 9816539 - 07/12/00
• MCCLAIN v PRUNTY
  No. 9955423 - 07/05/00
• MCINTYRE v USA
  No. 9817192 - 07/13/00
• MENDENHALL v NTSB
  No. 9870211o - 07/10/00
• NAT'L PARK & CONSERVATION v U.S. DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
  No. 9871268 - 07/26/00
• OMEGA ENVIRONMENTAL v VALLEY BANK
  No. 9835731 - 07/19/00
• PACHECO v USA
  No. 9915421 - 07/31/00
• PERSHING PARK v UNITED PACIFIC
  No. 9856261 - 07/10/00
• PICHARDO v INS [Currently not available]
  No. 98707759o - 07/07/00
• PORTLAND GE v US BANK TRUST
  No. 9935189 - 07/17/00
• RAY v HENDERSON
  No. 9915289 - 07/07/00
• ROBINSON v SOLANO COUNTY
  No. 9915225 - 07/12/00
• SAFFOLD v NEWLAND
  No. 9915541 - 07/17/00
• SCHELL v WITEK
  No. 9756197v2 - 07/11/00
• SIDHU v INS
  No. 9871363 - 07/20/00
• SIGMAN v USA
  No. 9835913v2 - 07/14/00
• SOLIS v GARCIA
  No. 9856219 - 07/12/00
• SONY v BLEEM
  No. 9917137v2 - 07/10/00
• SOUTHWEST v DANZIG
  No. 9856724 - 07/10/00
• STUART v UNUM
  No. 9755659 - 07/10/00
• TENTO INTERNATIONAL v STATE FARM
  No. 9856862 - 07/13/00
• THE FREE SPEECH v RENO
  No. 9716536o - 07/24/00
• TOCHER v SANTA ANA
  No. 9755628 - 07/14/00
• TURNIN v CIR
  No. 9970130 - 07/21/00
• UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD v MOWER
  No. 9836140 - 07/19/00
• USA v ALBERS
  No. 9910071 - 07/17/00
• USA v ANDRA
  No. 9930296 - 07/27/00
• USA v ARVIZU
  No. 9910229 - 07/07/00
• USA v BARRIOS GUTIERREZ
  No. 9910148 - 07/14/00
• USA v BENNET
  No. 9750605 - 07/28/00
• USA v CERON-SANCHEZ
  No. 9910284 - 07/26/00
• USA v CHARLESWORTH
  No. 9810515 - 07/10/00
• USA v CICCONE
  No. 9810483 - 07/19/00
• USA v CLARK
  No. 9930200 - 07/17/00
• USA v CORMIER
  No. 9930182 - 07/24/00
• USA v DANIEL
  No. 9910268o - 07/07/00
• USA v DUNIFER
  No. 9915035 - 07/20/00
• USA v ENAS
  No. 9910049v2 - 07/28/00
• USA v ESTRADA MACIAS
  No. 9710115 - 07/12/00
• USA v FUCHS
  No. 9810173 - 07/06/00
• USA v GARZA-SANCHEZ
  No. 9950596 - 07/07/00
• USA v HICKS
  No. 9910352v2 - 07/31/00
• USA v HINTON
  No. 9910344 - 07/25/00
• USA v HOUSTON
  No. 9950426 - 07/05/00
• USA v HURSH
  No. 9950504 - 07/06/00
• USA v JOHN DOE
  No. 9950250 - 07/20/00
• USA v JUVINELE
  No. 9850368o - 07/06/00
• USA v KELLINGTON
  No. 9830193 - 07/07/00
• USA v LINDBERG
  No. 9910371 - 07/27/00
• USA v MAGALLON JIMENEZ
  No. 9950561 - 07/21/00
• USA v MUSA
  No. 9950183 - 07/24/00
• USA v PINJUV
  No. 9910597 - 07/21/00
• USA v REYES PLATERO
  No. 9950234 - 07/11/00
• USA v REYNA
  No. 9910333 - 07/31/00
• USA v ROMERO-RENDON
  No. 9950137v2 - 07/31/00
• USA v RUELAS-ARREGUIN
  No. 9950213 - 07/19/00
• USA v SAUZA-MARTINEZ
  No. 9850770 - 07/06/00
• USA v TIMBANA
  No. 9730001v2 - 07/28/00
• USA v UNIV SO. CAL
  No. 9856020 - 07/10/00
• USA v WALLACE
  No. 9950567v2 - 07/07/00
• USA v WEBB
  No. 9930155 - 07/28/00
• WETZEL v LOU EHLERS CADILLAC GROUP
  No. 9756437v2 - 07/26/00
• WHALEM HUNT v EARLY
  No. 9955627o - 07/07/00
• WRIGHT v RIVELAND
  No. 9736074 - 07/11/00

 

Cases of June 2000: First v. second party [Revert]

 

• ABKCO MUSIC v LAVERE
  No. 9856145 - 06/26/00
• ALBERTO-GONZALEZ v INS
  No. 9770473 - 06/06/00
• ATT v CITY OF PORTLAND
  No. 9935609 - 06/22/00
• AVETOVA v INS
  No. 9870547v2 - 06/26/00
• BAUTISTA v LA COUNTY
  No. 9756074 - 06/20/00
• BOTOSAN v MCNALLY REALTY
  No. 9955580 - 06/20/00
• BRIBIESCA v GALAZA
  No. 9955957 - 06/19/00
• BROOKS v CITY OF SAN MATEO
  No. 9815818 - 06/05/00
• CASTRO-BAEZ v RENO
  No. 9970484 - 06/30/00
• CHANCHVAC v INS
  No. 9871195v2 - 06/09/00
• COADY v CIR
  No. 9871358 - 06/14/00
• COMER v STEWART
  No. 9899003o - 06/06/00
• DAVITON v COLUMBIA/HCA HEALTHCARE
  No. 9816698o - 06/01/00
• DIAMOND v CITY OF TAFT
  No. 9817253 - 06/27/00
• DOES I v ADVANCED TEXTILE
  No. 9916713 - 06/02/00
• DUNLEAVY v NADLER
  No. 9915361v2 - 06/19/00
• ESCOBAR GRIJALVA v INS
  No. 9871469v2 - 06/20/00
• FISCHER v SJB
  No. 9856586 - 06/15/00
• FRANK v UNITED AIRLINES
  No. 9815638 - 06/21/00
• JOHNSON v LEWIS
  No. 9816821 - 06/29/00
• LADHA v INS
  No. 9870772v2 - 06/30/00
• LADHA v INS
  No. 9870772 - 06/01/00
• LAJOIE v THOMPSON
  No. 9835919v2 - 06/23/00
• LIM v CITY OF LONG BEACH
  No. 9855915 - 06/27/00
• METCALF v DALEY
  No. 9836135 - 06/09/00
• MONTEREY PLAZA v LOCAL
  No. 9916714 - 06/07/00
• MOORE v APFEL
  No. 9856318 - 06/22/00
• MORALES v CITY OF LOS ANGELES
  No. 9856478 - 06/12/00
• NATIONAL WARRANTY INS v GREENFIELD
  No. 9836054 - 06/05/00
• NAVAS v INS
  No. 9870363 - 06/20/00
• PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA v USA
  No. 9915388 - 06/14/00
• RADICI v ASSOCIATED INSURANCE
  No. 9817437 - 06/29/00
• SCHAEFFER v TOWNSEND
  No. 9855718 - 06/20/00
• SCOTT v BOOS
  No. 9815877 - 06/08/00
• SS RETAIL v EKSTROM
  No. 9916413 - 06/30/00
• STANLEY v MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD
  No. 9817313 - 06/07/00
• STATE OF IDAHO v HORIUCHI
  No. 9830149 - 06/14/00
• TAHOE SIERRA v TAHOE REGIONAL
  No. 9915641 - 06/15/00
• US v ASARCO
  No. 9836247 - 06/15/00
• USA v AGUIRRE
  No. 9950135 - 06/19/00
• USA v ANGLIN
  No. 9910386 - 06/07/00
• USA v AVILES
  No. 9610110ov2 - 06/30/00
• USA v BANULELOS RODRIGUEZ
  No. 9650297v3 - 06/14/00
• USA v BENAVIDEZ BENAVIDEZ
  No. 9910270 - 06/28/00
• USA v BOWMAN
  No. 9930120 - 06/12/00
• USA v BOYD
  No. 9910384 - 06/02/00
• USA v CAMPOS
  No. 9750635 - 06/28/00
• USA v CERVANTES
  No. 9850722 - 06/12/00
• USA v DE JESUS
  No. 9850639 - 06/16/00
• USA v DENTON
  No. 9830221 - 06/16/00
• USA v FLEMING
  No. 9910324 - 06/07/00
• USA v GONZALEZ
  No. 9710520 - 06/15/00
• USA v HARRISON
  No. 9910496o - 06/29/00
• USA v HICKS
  No. 9910352 - 06/12/00
• USA v JIANG
  No. 9910367 - 06/14/00
• USA v JIMENEZ
  No. 9910133 - 06/14/00
• USA v JOHNSON
  No. 9915467o - 06/05/00
• USA v JOHNSON
  No. 9915467ov2 - 06/16/00
• USA v KAKATIN
  No. 9910361 - 06/01/00
• USA v MALDONADO
  No. 9750440 - 06/26/00
• USA v MATEO MENDEZ
  No. 9950394 - 06/21/00
• USA v POEHLMAN
  No. 9850631 - 06/27/00
• USA v SIMS
  No. 9915665 - 06/27/00
• USA v SMITH
  No. 9910171 - 06/29/00
• USA v WALLACE
  No. 9950567 - 06/09/00
• USA v WILLIAMS
  No. 9910295 - 06/29/00
• USA v WRIGHT
  No. 9850489 - 06/19/00
• VAN GERWUN v GUARANTEE
  No. 9856028 - 06/01/00
• VASUDEVA v USA
  No. 9835726 - 06/12/00
• WEIGHALL v MIDDLE
  No. 9935657 - 06/01/00
• YE v INS
  No. 9870784 - 06/09/00
• YOUNG v CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
  No. 9756484 - 06/20/00

Cases of May 2000: First v. second party [Revert]

 

• ADLER v REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
  No. 9855456 - 05/17/00
• AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY v USPS
  No. 9835466 - 05/25/00
• ALASKA v USA
  No. 9835310 - 05/23/00
• ARAB MONETARY FUND v HASHIM
  No. 9817128 - 05/30/00
• ARCO v DEPT OF HEALTH
  No. 9936033 - 05/24/00
• ARNETT v CALIFORNIA PERS
  No. 9815574ov3 - 05/12/00
• AVETOVA ELISSEVA v INS
  No. 9870547 - 05/15/00
• BELAYNEH v INS
  No. 9870941 - 05/23/00
• BELTRAN TIRADO v INS
  No. 9870783 - 05/31/00
• BOLLARD v SOCIETY OF JESUS
  No. 9816194o - 05/05/00
• BRADY v USA
  No. 9915135 - 05/03/00
• BRESSON v CIR
  No. 9871377 - 05/31/00
• CABLE COMPUTER v LOCKHEED
  No. 9955004 - 05/31/00
• CAR TRANSPORTATION v DARDEN
  No. 9856122 - 05/22/00
• CASTILLO PEREZ v INS
  No. 9770548 - 05/11/00
• COLEMAN v CALDERON
  No. 9799013v2 - 05/02/00
• DUNLEAVY v NEDERLANDER
  No. 9915361 - 05/22/00
• ECHAZABAL v CHEVRON
  No. 9855551 - 05/23/00
• FAIRBANK v WUNDERMAN CATO
  No. 9817298 - 05/05/00
• FAYEGHI v CIR
  No. 9871375 - 05/03/00
• FLORES MIRAMONTES v INS
  No. 9870924 - 05/09/00
• HAN v STANFORD
  No. 9915218 - 05/01/00
• HARMAN v APFEL
  No. 9835780v2 - 05/04/00
• HEADWATERS FOREST v HUMBOLDT COUNTY
  No. 9817250 - 05/04/00
• JACKSON v CALDERON
  No. 9799032 - 05/08/00
• JANKEY v TWENTIETH CENTURY
  No. 9856585 - 05/16/00
• JONES v GNC FRANCHISING
  No. 9955633 - 05/03/00
• MAINI v INS
  No. 9870894 - 05/19/00
• MENDENHALL v NTSB
  No. 9870211 - 05/22/00
• MONERGO v ROSA
  No. 9816846 - 05/03/00
• MONTCLAIR PARKOWNERS v MONTCLAIR
  No. 9955083 - 05/08/00
• NEPTUNE ORIENT v BURLINGTON
  No. 9817387 - 05/24/00
• NEVIUS v MCDANIEL
  No. 0099009o - 05/31/00
• ONTIVEROS LOPEZ v INS
  No. 9770752 - 05/24/00
• RESNICK v HAYES
  No. 9815704v2 - 05/22/00
• RIVERA MORENO v INS
  No. 9871463 - 05/23/00
• ROSTOMIAN v INS
  No. 9870564 - 05/03/00
• SECULAR ORGANIZATIONS v SOS
  No. 9815143 - 05/25/00
• SINGH v INS
  No. 9870663 - 05/25/00
• SONY v BLEEM
  No. 9917137 - 05/04/00
• SULIT v SCHILTGEN
  No. 9815280 - 05/17/00
• TEDORI v USA
  No. 9856049v2 - 05/18/00
• TEDORI v USA
  No. 9856049 - 05/01/00
• THREE BOYS MUSIC v BOLTON
  No. 9755150 - 05/09/00
• TRAN v LINDSEY
  No. 9856251 - 05/16/00
• USA v ALAMEDA GATEWAY
  No. 9915642 - 05/26/00
• USA v DEPEW
  No. 9830196 - 05/02/00
• USA v GARCIA
  No. 9815839 - 05/02/00
• USA v HARRISON
  No. 9910496 - 05/30/00
• USA v HERNANDEZ SANDOVAL
  No. 9850356 - 05/03/00
• USA v IDAHO
  No. 9835831 - 05/02/00
• USA v JUVENILE MALE
  No. 9930269 - 05/11/00
• USA v MARTINEZ VITELA
  No. 9850440o - 05/25/00
• USA v OLAFSON
  No. 9950216o - 05/22/00
• USA v PACHECO MEDINA
  No. 9950414 - 05/16/00
• USA v RAMERIZ CORTEZ
  No. 9850774 - 05/25/00
• USA v REEVES
  No. 9930158 - 05/01/00
• USA v RUIZ ALVAREZ
  No. 9617272v2 - 05/22/00
• USA v SNORING RELIEF LABS
  No. 9915190 - 05/02/00
• USA v THOMAS
  No. 9910355 - 05/08/00
• VONS v FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
  No. 9856645 - 05/09/00
• WIN v WARHEIT
  No. 9835412 - 05/25/00

Cases of April 2000: First v. second party [Revert]

 

• ANGUIANO v ALLSTATE INSURANCE
  No. 9756704 - 04/19/00
• ARNETT v CALIFORNIA PERS
  No. 9815574ov2 - 04/25/00
• BALCORTA v TWENTIETH CENTURY
  No. 9856547 - 04/06/00
• BALLARD v BALDRIDGE
  No. 9917369o - 04/17/00
• BETHEL v USA
  No. 9835316 - 04/06/00
• BIBEAU v PACIFIC NORTHWEST
  No. 9735825o - 04/12/00
• BREWER v CITY OF NAPA
  No. 9816460 - 04/25/00
• COCHRAN v NYP HOLDINGS
  No. 9856536 - 04/28/00
• COLMENAR v INS
  No. 9870422 - 04/14/00
• COOL FUEL v BD OF EQUALIZATION
  No. 9856092 - 04/21/00
• CRAMER v CONSOLIDATED
  No. 9855657 - 04/26/00
• DOWS v WOD
  No. 9935625 - 04/27/00
• DUNCAN v NORTHWEST AIRLINES
  No. 9835617 - 04/06/00
• FERRARI v SIMS
  No. 9916059 - 04/27/00
• FIRST INTERSTATE v MURPHY
  No. 9817420 - 04/20/00
• GARDENHIRE v IRS
  No. 9855876 - 04/17/00
• GENTALA v CITY OF TUCSON
  No. 9717062 - 04/20/00
• HARVEY v WALDRON
  No. 9836112 - 04/25/00
• HOLLISTER v TUTTLE
  No. 9835058v2 - 04/28/00
• KDM v REEDSPORT SCHOOL DISTRICT
  No. 9835186o - 04/25/00
• KHOURASSANY v INS
  No. 9970020 - 04/05/00
• KLEM v COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
  No. 9816844 - 04/03/00
• LACROSSE v KERNAN
  No. 9755085 - 04/24/00
• MA v RENO
  No. 9935976 - 04/10/00
• MANYBEADS v USA
  No. 9015003 - 04/18/00
• MITCHELL v FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
  No. 9856475 - 04/21/00
• NISSAN FIRE v FRITZ
  No. 9816024 - 04/25/00
• NLRB v ADVANCED STRETCHFORMING
  No. 9771047 - 04/04/00
• ORTEGA v ROE
  No. 9717232o - 04/24/00
• PACIFIC HARBOR v CARNIVAL
  No. 9835633 - 04/27/00
• PASSANTINO v JOHNSON AND JOHNSON
  No. 9736191v2 - 04/27/00
• POPE v MAN DATA
  No. 9836192 - 04/18/00
• RICE v CAYETANO
  No. 9716095o - 04/05/00
• RICH v WOODFORD
  No. 0099004d - 04/07/00
• RUTLEDGE v SEYFARTH
  No. 9815298v2 - 04/05/00
• TIGHE v CELEBRITY HOME
  No. 9855282 - 04/21/00
• TOSELLO v USA
  No. 9915092 - 04/28/00
• USA v CHACON PALOMARES
  No. 9935390 - 04/06/00
• USA v CHANG
  No. 9750518 - 04/04/00
• USA v CHON
  No. 9810469 - 04/20/00
• USA v COLEMAN
  No. 9930104 - 04/03/00
• USA v CORONA GARCIA
  No. 9850568 - 04/14/00
• USA v DANIEL
  No. 9910268 - 04/19/00
• USA v FUENTES CARIAGA
  No. 9950222 - 04/17/00
• USA v JACKSON
  No. 9817410 - 04/20/00
• USA v MATTAROLO
  No. 9810395v2 - 04/17/00
• USA v MONTERO CAMARGO
  No. 9750643v2 - 04/11/00
• USA v ROMERO AVILA
  No. 9950289 - 04/26/00
• USA v RUIZ ALVAREZ
  No. 9617272 - 04/25/00
• USA v VAN LOBEN SELS
  No. 9810355o - 04/14/00
• USA v VONN
  No. 9850385 - 04/20/00
• USA v WILKERSON
  No. 9850504 - 04/03/00
• USA v ZUNO ARCE
  No. 9856770 - 04/19/00
• WALTER v MATTEL
  No. 9856801 - 04/26/00
• WASHINGTON v CAMBRA
  No. 9815730 - 04/14/00
• WEINER v SAN DIEGO COUNTY
  No. 9855752 - 04/27/00
• WILLIAMSON v GENERAL DYNAMIC
  No. 9855783 - 04/12/00
• WILLIAMSON v GENERAL DYNAMIC [Currently not available]
  No. 9855873 - 04/12/00
• YAZITCHIAN v INS
  No. 9870752 - 04/03/00
• YONG v INS
  No. 9917242 - 04/11/00

Cases of March 2000: First v. second party [Revert]

 

• ADA v GUTIERREZ
  No. 9817306o - 03/06/00
• ADVANI v TOPWORTH [Currently not available]
  No. 9756550o - 03/23/00
• AMAE v STATE OF CALIFORNIA
  No. 9617131o - 03/27/00
• AMERICAN FEDERATION v FLRA
  No. 9870912 - 03/03/00
• ARAGON AYON v INS
  No. 9870462 - 03/13/00
• ARNETT v PERS
  No. 9815574o - 03/16/00
• ARREGUIN v PRUNTY
  No. 9856611 - 03/08/00
• ASHMUS v WOODFORD
  No. 9999007o - 03/09/00
• BAINS v CAMBRA
  No. 9817223 - 03/02/00
• BAIZER v CIR
  No. 9870870 - 03/01/00
• BAKER v BLAINE
  No. 9835378 - 03/06/00
• BANK OF AMERICA v MCMATH
  No. 9816543 - 03/13/00
• BENNETT v KING
  No. 9715848o - 03/07/00
• BERNAL v EDUCATION CREDIT
  No. 9856432 - 03/28/00
• BLAIR v CITY OF POMONA
  No. 9855548 - 03/21/00
• BOEING v CASCADE
  No. 9635246 - 03/24/00
• BURLINGTON NORTHERN v IBET
  No. 9735859ov2 - 03/08/00
• CALIFORNIA MEDICAL v BELSHE
  No. 9856134 - 03/22/00
• CARPENTERS v KNIGHT
  No. 9855547 - 03/14/00
• CHANCHAVAC v INS
  No. 9871195 - 03/27/00
• CHIRON v ORTHO
  No. 9915064 - 03/28/00
• COOK v ERBEY
  No. 9855872 - 03/10/00
• CORDON GARCIA v INS
  No. 9870464 - 03/03/00
• DEBOER v CITY OF BELLINGHAM
  No. 9735363 - 03/17/00
• DEGRASSI v CITY OF GLENDORA
  No. 9855802 - 03/20/00
• DEMANDO v MORRIS
  No. 9816001 - 03/21/00
• DESARACHO v CUSTOM FOOD
  No. 9815003 - 03/03/00
• DIRUZZA v COUNTY OF TEHAMA
  No. 9815997 - 03/21/00
• DUBRIA v SMITH
  No. 9855914o - 03/09/00
• DURKIN v BENEDOR
  No. 9855846 - 03/09/00
• FLORES v SAN DIEGO COUNTY
  No. 9855300 - 03/13/00
• GRAVA v INS
  No. 9870981 - 03/07/00
• GRIJALVA v INS
  No. 9871469 - 03/24/00
• HARRIS v HARRIS AND HART
  No. 9835949 - 03/13/00
• HILL v CIR
  No. 9970101 - 03/01/00
• HOLLISTER v TUTTLE
  No. 9835058 - 03/30/00
• HOWARD v AMERICA ONLINE
  No. 9856138 - 03/29/00
• HUMANITARIAN LAW v RENO
  No. 9856062 - 03/03/00
• INDEPENDENT ACCEPT v DHHS
  No. 9816533 - 03/09/00
• IP v USA
  No. 9817035 - 03/07/00
• IRS v PALMER
  No. 9835577 - 03/20/00
• JACINTO v INS
  No. 9870321 - 03/14/00
• JOHNSON v STATE OF CALIFORNIA
  No. 9855302 - 03/21/00
• JONES v WOOD
  No. 9935029 - 03/10/00
• KERSTING v USA
  No. 9416942 - 03/13/00
• KUMAR v INS
  No. 9871129 - 03/02/00
• LATA v INS
  No. 9870814 - 03/08/00
• LOYD v AGUILAR
  No. 9855113 - 03/29/00
• LSO v STROH
  No. 9856093 - 03/06/00
• MARTIN v PGA TOUR
  No. 9835309 - 03/06/00
• MCI v US WEST
  No. 9835819 - 03/02/00
• MENDLER v WINTERLAND
  No. 9816061 - 03/14/00
• PAL v INS
  No. 9871135 - 03/02/00
• PASSANTINO v JOHNSON JOHNSON
  No. 9736191c - 03/10/00
• PASSANTINO v JOHNSON JOHNSON
  No. 9736191 - 03/10/00
• PEREZ LASTOR v INS
  No. 9870266 - 03/31/00
• PRESCOTT v COUNTY OF EL DORADO
  No. 9815579o - 03/02/00
• REESE v JEFFERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT
  No. 9935543 - 03/29/00
• SEA HAWK v ALYESKA
  No. 9835807 - 03/16/00
• SEC v NITE
  No. 9856980 - 03/29/00
• SELF REALIZATION v ANANDA CHURCH
  No. 9717407 - 03/23/00
• SIGMAN v USA 9835922; 35935; 35936; 35937; 35938 ; 35939; 35946L 35947;
  No. 9835913 - 03/29/00
• SILVEIRA v APFEL
  No. 9756186 - 03/02/00
• SIMON v VALUE BEHAVORIAL
  No. 9855905 - 03/17/00
• SOCOP GONZALEZ v INS
  No. 9870782 - 03/27/00
• STEWART v THORPE HOLDING
  No. 9855746 - 03/31/00
• TAYLOR v RANCHO SANTA BARBARA
  No. 9856204 - 03/21/00
• TECUN FLORIAN v INS
  No. 9870682 - 03/14/00
• USA v BEARDSLEE
  No. 9710286o - 03/02/00
• USA v CASTILLO CASIANO
  No. 9850589v2 - 03/10/00
• USA v COLVIN
  No. 9935269 - 03/01/00
• USA v GARCIA
  No. 9910001 - 03/07/00
• USA v GOMEZ LEPE
  No. 9930031 - 03/16/00
• USA v HAGBERG
  No. 9930112 - 03/22/00
• USA v HAMILTON
  No. 9750540 - 03/24/00
• USA v HARDEMAN
  No. 9710516 - 03/21/00
• USA v HINOJOSA PEREZ
  No. 9830304 - 03/13/00
• USA v IBARRA GALINDO
  No. 9930090 - 03/27/00
• USA v JOHNSON
  No. 9830346 - 03/08/00
• USA v JOHNSON
  No. 9930012 - 03/10/00
• USA v LOMBERA CARMORLINGA
  No. 9850347v2 - 03/06/00
• USA v LOPEZ SOTO
  No. 9950201 - 03/08/00
• USA v MILLER
  No. 9910094 - 03/08/00
• USA v NEWMAN
  No. 9750508a - 03/09/00
• USA v ROSS
  No. 9850071 - 03/16/00
• USA v SALAZAR ROBLES
  No. 9910194 - 03/21/00
• USA v SANDOVAL BARAJAS
  No. 9930130 - 03/13/00
• USA v STANDARD
  No. 9850632 - 03/29/00
• USA v STEPHENS
  No. 9810374 - 03/20/00
• USA v TAKAHASHI
  No. 9810219 - 03/06/00
• USA v VILLA GONZALEZ
  No. 9915515 - 03/16/00
• USA v WETCHIE
  No. 9930152 - 03/16/00
• VARELA v INS
  No. 9870771 - 03/08/00
• WEBB v NATIONAL UNION FIRE
  No. 9935303 - 03/24/00
• WELCH v CIR
  No. 9870930 - 03/01/00
• WEST v SECRETARY OF DOT
  No. 9736118 - 03/20/00
• YUKON RECOVERY v OCEAN MAR
  No. 9836015 - 03/07/00

Cases of February 2000: First v. second party [Revert]

 

• A-1 AMBULANCE v STATE OF CALIFORNIA
  No. 9815200 - 02/07/00
• AALMUHAMMED v LEE
  No. 9955224 - 02/04/00
• ATT v PACIFIC BELL
  No. 9816047 - 02/14/00
• BALICE v USDA
  No. 9816766 - 02/08/00
• BARNETT v US AIR
  No. 9616669ov2 - 02/01/00
• BJ CARNEY v US EPA
  No. 9870315o - 02/04/00
• BOWEN v HOOD PLUS 45 OTHER CASE NUMBERS
  No. 9836190 - 02/04/00
• BURLINGTON NORTHERN v IBET
  No. 9735859v2 - 02/15/00
• COMEDY III v NEW LINE
  No. 9855301v2 - 02/04/00
• DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE v BERNAL
  No. 9816099 - 02/28/00
• FARRAR v MCKOWN
  No. 9815017 - 02/14/00
• FIREBAUGH CANAL v USA
  No. 9515300 - 02/04/00
• FLICK v LIBERTY MUTUAL
  No. 9816485 - 02/15/00
• FRANKLIN v TERR
  No. 9816843 - 02/02/00
• G G FIRE SPRINKLERS v BRADSHAW
  No. 9556639o - 02/23/00
• GARVEY v ROBERTS
  No. 9855263 - 02/10/00
• GOTO.COM v DISNEY
  No. 9956691 - 02/02/00
• HARMAN v SSA
  No. 9835780 - 02/17/00
• HC v KOPPEL
  No. 9955029 - 02/11/00
• HEALY TIBBITS v CABRAL
  No. 9870552 - 02/02/00
• HEIN v DIEGUENO MISSION INDIANS
  No. 9856182 - 02/07/00
• HERNANDEZ v CAMPBELL
  No. 9856884 - 02/08/00
• HUSKEY v CITY OF SAN JOSE
  No. 9915123 - 02/24/00
• HYDRANAUTICS v FILMTEC
  No. 9855274 - 02/23/00
• INSURANCE COMPANY v NNR AIRCARGO
  No. 9855280 - 02/04/00
• KAREN KANE v RELIANCE INSURANCE
  No. 9855589 - 02/02/00
• LALONDE v COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
  No. 9855887 - 02/25/00
• LINDSEY v TACOMA PIERCE
  No. 9835416o - 02/14/00
• LOPEZ v SMITH
  No. 9716987v2 - 02/10/00
• LOPEZ v THOMPSON
  No. 9735837v2 - 02/04/00
• MCDANIEL v CHEVRON
  No. 9816363 - 02/09/00
• MCNATT v APFEL
  No. 9935168 - 02/02/00
• MICHAELS v ARTHUR
  No. 9836044 - 02/09/00
• MURPHEY v LANIER
  No. 9855755 - 02/25/00
• NOVA DESIGNS v PADI
  No. 9855358 - 02/08/00
• PRUDENTIAL REAL ESTATE v PPR REALTY
  No. 9955258 - 02/23/00
• REYNOLDS METALS v ELLIS
  No. 9855096 - 02/10/00
• RUCKER v DAVIS
  No. 9816322 - 02/14/00
• SCHWENK v HARTFORD
  No. 9735870 - 02/29/00
• SLEVIRA v WESTERN SUGAR
  No. 9935109 - 02/02/00
• SONY v CONNECTIX
  No. 9915852 - 02/10/00
• USA v CABEREA
  No. 9910242 - 02/01/00
• USA v ENAS
  No. 9910049 - 02/28/00
• USA v GUESS
  No. 9816323 - 02/10/00
• USA v HANKEY
  No. 9850359 - 02/18/00
• USA v HAYES
  No. 9850609o - 02/01/00
• USA v HERNANDEZ
  No. 9850206 - 02/11/00
• USA v NEWMAN
  No. 9750508 - 02/09/00
• USA v ORTEGA
  No. 9810323 - 02/01/00
• USA v OSBORN
  No. 9910119 - 02/09/00
• USA v PACE
  No. 9810521 - 02/07/00
• USA v TRENTER
  No. 9930226 - 02/07/00
• USA v WEISCHEDEL
  No. 9830324 - 02/01/00
• WADE v TERHUNE
  No. 9816720 - 02/02/00
• WALLIS v SPENCER
  No. 9755579v2 - 02/07/00
• WARD v BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
  No. 9817319 - 02/23/00
• WASSON v SONOMA COUNTY
  No. 9815967 - 02/16/00
• WHALEM HUNT v EARLY
  No. 9955627 - 02/24/00

Cases of January 2000: First v. second party [Revert]

 

• ADDISU v FRED MEYER, INC.
  No. 9835854 - 01/04/00
• ALASKA v USA
  No. 9636041 - 01/28/00
• AMERICAN RIVERS v FERC
  No. 9870079v2 - 01/14/00
• ASHMUS v WOODFORD
  No. 9999007 - 01/24/00
• ASSOCIATION v FLRA
  No. 9870838 - 01/10/00
• BABY TAM & CO v CITY OF LAS VEGAS
  No. 9916809 - 01/14/00
• BINS v EXXON COMPANY
  No. 9855662o - 01/07/00
• BURGERT v BISHOP TRUST
  No. 9816238 - 01/26/00
• BURLINGTON v RED WOLF
  No. 9835502v2 - 01/06/00
• CALIF ATTYS v BUTTS
  No. 9756499v2 - 01/03/00
• CLINE v THE INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING
  No. 9816025 - 01/11/00
• COMEDY III PRODUCTIONS v NEW LINE CINEMA
  No. 9855301 - 01/11/00
• CONDE v HENRY
  No. 9856445v2 - 01/27/00
• DUHAIME v DUCHARME
  No. 9836073v2 - 01/10/00
• GUTIERREZ v APFEL
  No. 9816462 - 01/13/00
• HILL v BLIND INDUSTRIES
  No. 9755382v2 - 01/31/00
• IN RE: NAT'L ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE
  No. 9855597o - 01/19/00
• IN RE: STEIN; MITCHEL v BURT, ET AL.
  No. 9835659v2 - 01/05/00
• KELLY v CITY OF OAKLAND
  No. 9816482o - 01/12/00
• KIBLER v WALTERS
  No. 9835536v2 - 01/14/00
• KLAMATH WATER v PATTERSON
  No. 9835708v2 - 01/28/00
• KLEVE v HILL
  No. 9756182o - 01/21/00
• LABORERS HEALTH v DELBON CO
  No. 9816407 - 01/06/00
• LAJOIE v THOMPSON
  No. 9835919 - 01/31/00
• MARINE POWER v DOL
  No. 9870049 - 01/31/00
• MCALINDIN v COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
  No. 9756787o - 01/18/00
• NAT'L ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE v STEPHENS, BERG & LANCASTER
  No. 9855597 - 01/18/00
• PAGE v TORREY
  No. 9856526 - 01/13/00
• PARK v PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA
  No. 9656750v2 - 01/21/00
• PRICE v KRAMER
  No. 9756580 - 01/11/00
• RESNICK v HAYES
  No. 9815704 - 01/11/00
• RUTLEDGE v SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON
  No. 9815298 - 01/12/00
• SANTA MARIA v PACIFIC BELL
  No. 9816437 - 01/25/00
• SIEGEL v NEWMAN
  No. 9856051o - 01/26/00
• ST OF NEVADA v HICKS
  No. 9617315v2 - 01/24/00
• TAYLOR v DIRECTOR OWCP
  No. 9871004 - 01/28/00
• US POSTAL SERVICE v AMADA
  No. 9815589 - 01/12/00
• USA v ANDERSON
  No. 9850238 - 01/25/00
• USA v BAHE
  No. 9910014 - 01/10/00
• USA v BYRNE
  No. 9850405v2 - 01/31/00
• USA v DIXON
  No. 9850601 - 01/21/00
• USA v ESTATE PRESERVATION
  No. 9817220 - 01/25/00
• USA v FLORES-GARCIA
  No. 9950105 - 01/04/00
• USA v GRIEFEN, ET AL
  No. 9830158 - 01/12/00
• USA v MACK, ET AL.
  No. 9830195 - 01/12/00
• USA v PALAFOX-MAZON
  No. 9910026 - 01/03/00
• USA v RAMIREZ VALENCIA
  No. 9950060 - 01/31/00
• USA v SANDOVAL
  No. 9830130 - 01/24/00
• USA v TANK
  No. 9810001 - 01/04/00
• USA v WAITES
  No. 9930037 - 01/04/00
• USA v WHITEHEAD
  No. 9950200 - 01/11/00
• VIRGIN v SAN LUIS OBISPO
  No. 9855557 - 01/13/00
• WEATHERHEAD v USA
  No. 9636260o - 01/26/00
• WEYER v TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP
  No. 9835215 - 01/03/00

 

U.S. Court of Appeal 9th Circuit Opinions  Case Summaries:

EMPLOYMENT LAW

ECHAZABAL v. CHEVRON (5/23/00 - No. 98-55551)

Under Americans with Disabilities Act, "direct threat" defense does not apply to employees, or prospective employees, who pose a direct threat to their own health or safety, but not to health or safety of other persons in the workplace. To  read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9855551.html

May 22, 2000

CRIMINAL LAW

RESNICK v. HAYES (5/22/00 - No. 98-15704v2)

Federal prisoner's confinement in administrative segregation pending disciplinary hearing did not violate due process. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9815704v2.html

 

BUSINESS LAW

CAR TRANSPORTATION v. DARDEN (5/22/00 - No. 98-56122)

Truck drivers had ostensible authority to sign waivers on behalf of their principals, and therefore lawfully allocated liability for freight charges under the Interstate Commerce Act by signing "Waiver of Claim by Subcontractor" forms. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9856122.html

 

CIVIL LITIGATION

MENDENHALL v. NTSB (5/22/00 - No. 98-70211)

Court lacked authority under Equal Access to Justice Act to order award of attorneys' fees "at a reasonable market rate" for legal services provided while case was before National Transportation Safety Board and not yet before court on a petition for administrative review. Petitioner's recovery should have been limited to the amount authorized by the statutory cap in force at the time. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9870211.html

 

CRIMINAL LAW

US v. OLAFSON (5/22/00 - No. 99-50216o)

Deported alien's hearsay statements about citizenship and alien status were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804 in prosecution for transporting illegal aliens. To read the full text of this opinion, go to:

http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9950216o.html

 

Case Summaries - May 16, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE

TRAN v. LINDSEY (5/16/00 - No. 98-56251)

When habeas corpus petitioner challenges a state court decision, alleging an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act requires federal court to conduct its review using clearly erroneous standard. To read the full text of this opinion, go to:

http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9856251.html

 

CIVIL RIGHTS/DISABILITY LAW

JANKEY v. TWENTIETH CENTURY (5/16/00 - No. 98-56585)

Facilities falling within one of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act's public accommodation categories are exempt from coverage if they are not in fact open to the public. To read the full text of this opinion, go to http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9856585.html

 

CRIMINAL/IMMIGRATION LAW

US v. PACHECO-MEDINA (5/16/00 - No. 99-50414)

Alien deported from United States to Mexico, kept under surveillance, and captured as he tried to re-enter was wrongfully convicted of crime of being found in the United States, as he could not have been found in a place he did not actually succeed in entering. Since he was kept under surveillance, he was never free from official restraint. To read the full text of this opinion, go to http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9950414.html

 

Case Summaries - May 11, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

IMMIGRATION LAW

CASTILLO-PEREZ v. INS (5/11/00 - No. 97-70548)

Alien who would be prima facie eligible for relief from

deportation but fails to timely file application for suspension

of deportation due to ineffective assistance of counsel is not

barred from applying.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:

http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9770548.html

 

CRIMINAL LAW

US v. JUVENILE MALE (5/11/00 - No. 99-30269)

"Mistake of age" is not available as a defense to

seventeen-year-old convicted of aggravated sexual abuse after

engaging in sexual intercourse with eleven-year-old.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:

http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9930269.html

 

Case Summaries - May 11, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

IMMIGRATION LAW

CASTILLO-PEREZ v. INS (5/11/00 - No. 97-70548)

Alien who would be prima facie eligible for relief from

deportation but fails to timely file application for suspension

of deportation due to ineffective assistance of counsel is not

barred from applying.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:

http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9770548.html

 

CRIMINAL LAW

US v. JUVENILE MALE (5/11/00 - No. 99-30269)

"Mistake of age" is not available as a defense to seventeen-year-old convicted of aggravated sexual abuse after engaging in sexual intercourse with eleven-year-old. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9930269.html

 

Case Summaries - May 8, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

JACKSON v. CALDERON (5/8/00 - No. 97-99032)

Defendant convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel at penalty but not guilt phase of trial. During penalty phase, counsel failed to compile defendant's social history and to present medical testimony despite fact that drug intoxication clouded defendant's mental condition at time of the murder. Court found a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, death penalty would not have been imposed.  To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9799032.html

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

US v. THOMAS (5/8/00 - No. 99-10355)

Sound of a package of marijuana being dropped into a vehicle is not sufficiently distinctive to provide law enforcement officers with reasonable suspicion to stop and search the vehicle. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9910355.html

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

MONTCLAIR PARKOWNERS v. MONTCLAIR (5/8/00 - No. 99-55083)

Issue as to whether Younger abstention required dismissal of a federal lawsuit brought to vindicate rights under federal Constitution's Takings Clause because plaintiff's analogous claims under state law were proceeding simultaneously before state court was moot as California court had concluded consideration of state law claims at time of the appeal. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9955083.html

Case Summaries - May 5, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL PROCEDURE

FAIRBANK v. WUNDERMAN CATO (5/5/00 - No. 98-17298)

District court did not abuse its discretion by reconsidering superior court’s  earlier denial of employer’s summary judgment motion, as material differences between federal and California summary judgment standards presented a cogent  reason for the reconsideration pursuant to Castner v. First Nat’l Bank of  Anchorage, 278 F.2d 376. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9817298.html

 

Case Summaries - May 4, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL RIGHTS

HEADWATERS FOREST v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY (5/4/00 - No. 98-17250)

Reasonable factfinder could have determined that using pepper spray to remove grinders linking nonviolent protestors to black bears constituted excessive force and an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Officers were  not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law since historical facts concerning reasonableness of pepper spray usage and what officers knew and did when they authorized its use were in dispute. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9817250.html

 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

SONY v. BLEEM (5/4/00 - No. 99-17137)

Unauthorized use of "screen shots" to advertise comparatively between what Sony PlayStation games look like on a television and what they look like on a computer when played with an emulator falls within the fair use exception to copyright law. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9917137.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Case Summaries - May 3, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL LITIGATION

US v. HERNANDEZ-SANDOVAL (5/3/00 - No. 98-50356)

Application of both two-level and three-level upper adjustments to defendant's prison sentence did not constitute double counting of his offenses, as the acts forming the basis for the enhancements-assault on a law enforcement officer and endangering another person-were independent of each other. To read the full text of this opinion, go to:  http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9850356.html

IMMIGRATION LAW

ROSTOMIAN v. INS (5/3/00 - No. 98-70564)

Random act of violence during period of significant strife in petitioners' homeland does not demonstrate persecution or well-founded fear of persecution sufficient to establish eligibility for asylum. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9870564.html

 

Case Summaries - May 2, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

CRIMINAL LAW

COLEMAN v. CALDERON (5/2/00 - No. 97-99013v2)

Instruction advising jury that Governor had power to commute petitioner's sentence but leaving out additional hurdles to be overcome to obtain such a commutation was constitutionally infirm because it discouraged jury from giving due weight to petitioner's mitigating evidence, and had a substantial and injurious effect in determining jury's verdict. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9799013v2.html 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

US v. GARCIA (5/2/00 - No. 98-15839)

One-year statute of limitations for federal prisoner who wants to attack conviction under 28 U.S.C. §2255 but does not file petition for writ of certiorari begins to run when time for filing petition expires. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9815839.html

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

US v. DEPEW (5/2/00 - No. 98-30196)

District court did not abuse its discretion by failing to authorize employment of an expert witness at government expense to testify regarding the capabilities of a thermal imager used to detect heat emanating from defendant's home. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9830196.html

GOVERNMENT LAW

US v. IDAHO (5/2/00 - No. 98-35831)

Congressional course of conduct in years immediately preceding Idaho's statehood was sufficient to demonstrate intent to defeat Idaho's title to submerged lands within present-day boundaries of Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9835831.html

GOVERNMENT LAW

US v. SNORING RELIEF LABS (5/2/00 - No. 99-15190)

District court should review seizure cases involving review of Food and Drug Administration's decisions using arbitrary and capricious standard. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9915190.html

 

Case Summaries - April 25, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

CRIMINAL LAW

US v. RUIZ-ALVAREZ (4/25/00 - No. 96-17272)

Although it did not specifically remand defendant's case for re-sentencing, by vacating his conviction on one count and affirming his convictions on the remaining counts, appellate court re-vested jurisdiction in the district court, granting it authority to re-sentence defendant in a manner not inconsistent with the decision. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9617272.html

CRIMINAL LAW

BREWER v. CITY OF NAPA (4/25/00 - No. 98-16460)

In federal civil rights actions, evidence of prior convictions based on nolo contendere pleas can be admitted into evidence for impeachment purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9816460.html

CRIMINAL LAW

HARVEY v. WALDRON (4/25/00 - No. 98-36112)

42 U.S.C. §1983 action based on allegations of illegal search and seizure of evidence upon which criminal charges are based does not accrue until criminal charges have been dismissed or conviction has been overturned. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9836112.html

 

------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Court of Appeal 9th Circuit Opinions

Case Summaries - April 20, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

GENTALA v. CITY OF TUCSON (4/20/00 - No. 97-17062)

Where government has created a forum for expressive activities that includes the provision of financial subsidies or in-kind services, provision of the subsidies or services to a speaker with a religious perspective will not violate the Establishment Clause as long as those services are provided to all speakers in the forum on a religiously neutral basis. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9717062.html

CRIMINAL LAW

US v. CHON (4/20/00 - No. 98-10469)

Although the military is generally prohibited from participating in civilian law enforcement activities, military involvement is permitted when there is an independent military purpose, such as protection of military equipment. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9810469.html

CRIMINAL LAW

US v. JACKSON (4/20/00 - No. 98-17410)

Senator's general denial under oath that he accepted a bribe was lacking in specificity, causing the court to determine that a new trial would not  produce defendant's acquittal for various crimes relating to the bribery. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9817410.html

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

FIRST INTERSTATE v. MURPHY (4/20/00 - No. 98-17420)

Law firm does not owe its client a duty to disclose that it hired the law clerk of a judge before whom it was appearing in a pending matter, since judge and law clerk were in the best position to prevent impropriety. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9817420.html

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

US v. VONN (4/20/00 - No. 98-50385)

Mere fact that criminal defendant has been assigned a lawyer for a plea hearing does not, standing alone, absolve district court judge of responsibility to advise defendant of his continuing right to an attorney at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(3). To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9850385.html

 

U.S. Court of Appeal 9th Circuit Opinions

Case Summaries - April 19, 2000

CRIMINAL LAW

US v. DANIEL (4/19/00 - No. 99-10268)

Oral findings made on the record by a district court satisfy due process in a supervised release revocation proceeding. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9910268.html

------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Court of Appeal 9th Circuit Opinions

Case Summaries - April 18, 2000

------------------------------------------------------------

Case Summaries - April 17, 2000

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

US v. MATTAROLO (4/17/00 - No. 98-10395v2)

Police officer reasonably stopped defendant as he backed his pickup truck loaded with a crate out of a driveway at a remote construction storage area at night. Subsequent patdown protective search was justified after defendant exited his vehicle and walked quickly toward the police officer, causing the officer to exit his own car quickly so as not to be trapped. Precautionary squeeze of object that could have been a pocketknife was reasonable. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9810395v2.html

CRIMINAL/IMMIGRATION LAW

US v. FUENTES-CARIAGA (4/17/00 - No. 99-50222)

Defendant's constitutional rights to due process and compulsory process were not violated by exclusion of non-percipient INS inspector's opinion that she would not personally infer consciousness of guilt from a driver's nervousness at the border. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9950222.html

 

CRIMINAL LAW

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

US v. MONTERO-CAMARGO (4/11/00 - No. 97-50643v2)

U-turns made by two cars with Mexicali license plates driven in tandem at locale historically used for  illegal activities, where Border Patrol officials' view was unobstructed and where sign indicated that Border Patrol checkpoint was open, was sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion for a stop by Border Patrol officials. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9750643v2.html

 

News! (April 12, 2000) Judges Slam Decision on Last Rites
An unusual coalition of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges slammed prison officials and state prosecutors over their refusal to grant a condemned inmate's request for a soul-purifying session in a Native American sweat lodge. (The Recorder -- Read the story.)

USA v. IBARRA-GALINDO (3/27/00 - No. 9930090)

Pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines, a state felony drug crime, which would not be a felony under federal law, may nevertheless constitute an “aggravated felony” for purposes of sentence enhancement for illegally reentering the United States. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9930090.html

 

USA v. NEWMAN (3/9/00 - No. 9750508a)

Retroactive application of United States Supreme Court decision prohibiting reduction of defendant’s prison sentence by duration of his confinement to a community treatment center as a condition of release on bail was reasonably foreseeable, did not enlarge the scope of criminal liability and therefore did not violate due process. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9750508a.html

HEALTH CARE LAW

INDEPENDENT ACCEPT v. DHHS (3/9/00 - No. 9816533)

Since notice of proposed changes in Medicare rate-setting methodology substantially complied with pertinent federal regulation, and change in the effective date was not considered significant enough to warrant new notice, Secretary of Health and Human Services did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in  approving State Plan Amendments to Medicaid Act. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9816533.html

CRIMINAL LAW

USA v. JOHNSON (3/8/00 - No. 9830346)

Appellant’s two prior juvenile adjudications should not have been considered in calculating his criminal history category because although they occurred within five years of his federal firearm offense, he was not confined as a result of the earlier adjudications. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9830346.html

CRIMINAL LAW

ARREGUIN v. PRUNTY (3/8/00 - No. 9856611)

Murder occurring during the course of a robbery is a special circumstance and sentencing factor rather than a separate crime creating potential for separate punishment. Therefore, Appellant did not have an independent Sixth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment due process right to a jury determination of the special circumstance. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9856611.html

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

USA v. MILLER (3/8/00 - No. 9910094)

District court has jurisdiction to modify payment of a fine that is made an express condition of a supervised release from prison under 18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(2). To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9910094.html

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

USA v. LOPEZ-SOTO (3/8/00 - No. 9950201)

Although made in good faith, traffic stop by police officer based on mistaken view of law was not objectively reasonable, and evidence seized was suppressed as it was obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9950201.html

 

DISABILITY LAW

MARTIN v. PGA TOUR (3/6/00 - No. 9835309)

Golf courses are places of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act while the PGA is conducting tournaments. Permitting plaintiff to use a golf cart during PGA and Nike tour events was a reasonable accommodation to his disability, and his use of the cart did not “fundamentally alter” the nature of the tournaments. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9835309.html

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

BAKER v. BLAINE (3/6/00 - 9835378)

State court’s decision that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and thus was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not contrary to clearly established federal law. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9835378.html

CRIMINAL LAW

USA v. LOMBERA CARMORLINGA (3/6/00 - 9850347v2)

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was not intended to be an exclusionary rule, and therefore, defendant’s post-arrest statements made before being advised of his right to notify his consulate were admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings. Domestic law enforcement authorities had no obligation to defendant’s consulate because he did not request contact. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9850347v2.html

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LSO v. STROH (3/6/00 - 9856093)

Lifestyles Organization, Limited (LSO) had standing to seek prospective and declaratory injunctive relief preventing California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) officials from interfering with future non-obscene erotic art exhibitions on the premises of an ABC licensee based upon California Administrative Code provisions prohibiting showing of erotic art onpremises holding a liquor license. Since no reasonable official could have believed that Administrative Code §143.4 could constitutionally be employed to impede LSO’s right to display non-obscene art on the premises of an ABC licensee, the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9856093.html

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

SCHWENK v. HARTFORD (2/29/00 - No. 9735870)

Prison guard accused of sexual assault on transsexual inmate is not entitled to qualified immunity on victim’s Eighth Amendment claim as no reasonable prison guard would have thought it acceptable to unzip his pants, expose himself, demand oral sex and upon refusal, grab the prisoner and force himself upon her. Although victim stated claim under Gender Motivated Violence Act, prison guard was entitled to qualified immunity on that claim since no court of appeals had ruled on the law’s constitutionality at the time of the assault. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9735870.html

Case Summaries - February 25, 2000

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

USA v. TAKAHASHI (3/6/00 - No. 9810219)

Since indictment did not charge defendant with intent to distribute drugs near a school, government was not required to prove proximity to a school in convicting him of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine, and district court improperly calculated defendant’s base offense level under Sentencing Guideline §2D1.2. Instead, § 2D1.1 was the most applicable guideline for defendant’s convictions. By escaping from prison, defendant willfully created the potential for obstruction of justice. As a result, district court properly applied two-level enhancement pursuant to Sentencing Guideline §3C1.1. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9810219.html

 

BAINS v. CAMBRA (3/2/00 - 9817223)

Targeted questioning of a suspected criminal does not constitute a custodial interrogation sufficient to trigger Miranda requirements simply because it occurred at a police station. In the instant case, the suspect went to the police station voluntarily, and a reasonable person in his situation would have felt free to terminate the interrogation. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9817223.html

 

LALONDE v. RIVERSIDE (2/25/00 - No. 9855887)

District court improperly granted qualified immunity to police officers who illegally entered appellant’s residence without a warrant and absent exigent circumstances. Further, appellant was entitled to have jury consider whether force used by arresting officers violated Fourth Amendment prohibition on excessive force.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to: <http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9855887.html>

 

CRIMINAL LAW
USA v. HANKEY (2/18/00 - No. 9850359)

Not an abuse of discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence to admit opinions of police gang expert regarding "code of silence" and repercussions for testifying against affiliated gang member for limited purpose of impeaching co-defendant's testimony.

Failure to permit testimony from defense attorney that police lied about time of defendant's release was properly kept from jury, as it was not relevant to voluntariness of defendant's confession.

Finding that evidence of drug sales involving same participants, amount and location as the transaction at issue were part of same course of conduct was supported by preponderance of evidence despite the fact that defendant was not convicted in those transactions.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9850359.html

Case Summaries - February 16, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FIRST AMENDMENT


WASSON v. SONOMA COUNTY (2/16/00 - No. 9815967)
A public employee cannot maintain a First Amendment claim that her employer wrongfully retaliated against her for exercising her right to free speech when she denies having made the speech in question.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9815967.html

Case Summaries - February 11, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE - RIGHT TO COUNSEL


USA v. HERNANDEZ (2/11/00 - No. 9850206)
Illegal reentry conviction vacated after determination that district court violated appellant's Sixth Amendment rights and rendered his guilty plea involuntary by failing to inform him of the implications of proceeding pro se and then denying his request for self-representation on the ground that he lacked sufficient information about the charges and possible penalties.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9850206.html


FAMILY LAW - CUSTODY


HC v. KOPPEL (2/11/00 - No. 9955029)
Younger v. Harris requires that federal court abstain from interfering in pending state court custody proceeding where controversy is live and no final state court judgment has been entered.


To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9955029.html

Case Summaries - February 10, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE

LOPEZ v. SMITH (2/10/00 - No. 9716987v2)
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 does not prevent a district court from
providing a pro se plaintiff with an opportunity to amend a Complaint
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9716987v2.html

CRIMINAL LAW

USA v. GUESS (2/10/00 - No. 9816323)
Patrolling a methamphetamine laboratory with a loaded, cocked firearm for
protection did not constitute "use" of the gun in connection with a drug
trafficking offense because appellant discarded the gun before the arresting
officers were aware that he had done so.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9816323.html

EMPLOYMENT LAW

REYNOLDS METALS v. ELLIS (2/10/00 - No. 9855096)
Actions brought by fiduciaries under ERISA to enforce reimbursement clauses
against plan beneficiaries do not fall within ERISA's civil enforcement
provisions.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9855096.html

EMPLOYMENT LAW

GARVEY v. ROBERTS (2/10/00) - No. 9855263)
Baseball arbitration award was vacated after court found that arbitrator
dispensed "his own brand of industrial justice."
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9855263.html

Case Summaries - December 20, 1999

------------------------------------------------------------

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SENTENCING

USA v RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ (12/20/99 - No. 9850674)

Ninth Circuit precedent clearly proscribes the categorical prohibition of grounds for departure that are not expressly excluded from consideration by the Sentencing Commission. Although a discretionary decision not to depart from the  Sentencing Guidelines is not reviewable on appeal, a denial based on the district court's belief that it lacks legal authority to depart is reviewable under a de novo standard. To read the full text of this opinion, go to http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9850674.html

 

 

U.S. Court of Appeal 9th Circuit Opinions

Case Summaries - December 15 - 16, 1999

------------------------------------------------------------

EMPLOYMENT LAW

MARCHISCHECK V SAN MATEO (12/16/99 - No. 98-16141)

Mother's one-month unauthorized leave from work to move her teenage son to the Philippines due to concerns over behavioral problems and symptoms of depression is not among the medical purposes that Congress intended to protect through the FMLA nor one that the California legislature intended to protect through the CFRA. [no link available at this time]

CIVIL RIGHTS / COLLEGE SPORTS

NEAL V BOARD OF TRUSTEES (12/15/99 - No. 99-15316)

Title IX does not bar a university in which male students occupy a disproportionately high percentage of athletic rosterspots from making gender-conscious decisions to reduce the proportion of roster spots assigned to men. [no link available at this time]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

US V JUVENILLE (12/15/99 - No. 98-50368)

Government violated the Juvenile Detention Act's requirements, but defendant juvenile's due process rights were not violated and the statutory violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Juvenile was custody for four hours prior to being read her rights. Although the Court found no case law interpreting what "immediately" means in a section 5033 context, it a held that a four-hour delay does not seem immediate. The Court further held that We therefore hold that the arresting officer violated section 5033 by failing to make sufficient pre-interrogation efforts to contact the consulate, given that the juvenile's parents did not reside in the US. [no link available at this time]

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

FREE SPEECH V RENO (12/17/99 - No. 97-16536)

First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting a statute that makes criminal the generation of images of fictitious children engaged in imaginary but explicit sexual conduct.

 

News! (December 9 , 1999) High Court Flips 9th Circuit on Address Access
The nation's high court overturned a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and upheld the constitutionality of a California statute prohibiting the addresses of arrestees and crime victims from freely flowing into the hands of anyone who wants to use the information for commercial purposes. (The Recorder -- Read the story.)

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE

SMITH v MARSH (11/01/99 - No. 9835732)

District court properly denied as untimely a motion to intervene as of right in a pending federal affirmative action lawsuit by prospective and current law students at the University of Washington who claim that their educational opportunities would be diminished if affirmative action were abolished. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9835732.html

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

CRIMINAL LAW / SENTENCING

Case Summaries - December 02, 1999

USA V STEVENS (12/02/99 - No. 98-30289)

District court erred in attempting to define the "heartland" of U.S.S.G. S 2G2.4 by cataloguing the harms that Congress sought to address when it prohibited the possession of child pornography and then deciding the extent to which Defendant contributed to those harms. In imposing sentence for possession of child pornography, court must compare defendant's conduct with that of other offenders.

 

US v DANIELS (10/21/99 - No. 9955097)

District court properly denied defendant's 28 U.S.C. S 2255 motion in which he sought to challenge the constitutionality of two state convictions, which were used in sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. S 924(e) (ACCA). In S 2255 proceedings, Custis v. United States [http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/U10401.html] bars "federal habeas review of the validity of a prior conviction used for federal sentencing enhancement unless the petitioner raises a Gideon claim." Contreras v. Schiltgen 

US v CRUZ-GUERRERO (10/18/99 - 9830290)

Two-year sentence that was enhanced to five years under California Penal Code S 12022.5 for using a firearm in connection with the crime qualifies as an "aggravated felony" justifying an upward adjustment of the defendant's federal sentence. The court rejected defendant's argument that his five-year sentence should be regarded as two separate sentences: two years for the conviction and three years for the enhancement.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to: laws.findlaw.com/9th/9830290.html

CIVIL RIGHTS/LABOR LAW:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 

CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE:

EDUCATION / DISABILITIES

Case Summaries - December 02, 1999

WITTE V CLARK COUNTY (12/02/99 - No. 98-16351)

Where disabled child injured by district employees has obtained new placement in individualized education program, the child need not exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act before filing action against school district.

GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY:

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW

LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW / WORKERS' COMPENSATION

DIRECTOR, OWCP v COOS HEAD (10/21/99 - No. 9670973)

Motion to publish is granted. The memorandum disposition filed 8/21/98 is hereby redesignated as a published opinion by Judge Kleinfeld. In the context of determining employer's eligibility for second injury fund coverage, it is reasonable to infer from credible witnesses and circumstantial evidence that more probably than not, there is a medical record when someone breaks his back and goes to a physician. 

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW - DAMAGES

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW - ADA

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW - FMLA

LABOR LAW - PREEMPTION

AUDETTE v ILUW (11/01/99 - No. 9835324) 

Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act preempts the claims of workers against their labor union and employers' association arising from an alleged breach of a settlement agreement allegedly motivated by retaliation and gender discrimination. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9835324.html

TORT LAW/CIVIL PROCEDURE

TORT LAW 

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

US v CLARK (11/01/99 - No. 9850371)

California Business and Professions Code S 6126, which makes it a misdemeanor to hold oneself out as entitled to practice law or otherwise to practice law without being an active member of the State Bar of California, is properly assimilated into federal law by the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. SS 7 and 13 Section 6126 is penal, it is prohibitory, and it is not precluded by generally applicable federal law that evinces an intent to punish the culpable conduct to the exclusion of state law. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9850371.html

U.S. Court of Appeal 11th Circuit Court Opinions -  Selected Case Summaries:

News!  (December 9, 1999) Law Cut Parole Powers, Panel Told
This week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on whether or not Georgia's then-Attorney General Michael J. Bowers' unfairly slammed the prison gates on possibly of hundreds of prisoners who believed they would shortly be eligible for parole. In 1995, Bowers issued an opinion on a state law under which those convicted of four or more felonies would have to serve their entire sentences, finding the 42-year old law was not unconstitutional and should be enforced by the state's parole board. (Fulton County Daily Report -- Read the story.)

© 1999 - 2007 Mark I. Levy, MD, DFAPA