Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court Cases

Search
  1. United States v. Winston Bryant McConney (1984)

    Winston McConney was convicted on stipulated facts of violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(h) which prohibits a convicted felon from receiving firearms shipped in interstate commerce. His appeal challenges the denial of his timely motion to suppress evidence as illegally obtained. We took the case en banc for the specific purpose of resolving the issue of the appropriate standard of appellate review for the mixed question of law and fact of "exigent circumstances."


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 80-1012
  2. United States v. Carty (2008)

    Jeffrey T. Green, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, (argued); Milagros A. Cisneros, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, for defendant-appellant Alphonso Kinzar Carty.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 05-10200, 05-30120
  3. Selamawit Zehatye v. Alberto R. Gonzales (2006)

    Peter K. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Waters, Assistant Director, Lisa M. Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Timothy B. Walthall, Trial Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent Alberto R. Gonzales.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 04-73295
  4. Baltazar Hernandez Barron Margarita Hernandez Ramirez v. John Ashcroft (2004)

    We must decide whether we have jurisdiction to consider a due process claim that the petitioners did not present to the Immigration and Naturalization Service or to the Board of Immigration Appeals.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 02-70887
  5. Jamal Ali Farah v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General (2003)

    Petitioner, Jamal Ali Farah, petitions for review of the BIA's decision denying his application for asylum and adopting the opinion of the immigration judge ("IJ"). The IJ had ordered Farah removed on the basis of the finding that Farah was not credible and had further ordered Farah permanently ineligible for any benefits under the immigration laws of the United States because his application was frivolous. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6).


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 02-70252
  6. Wakkary v. Holder (2009)

    The primary question we decide today concerns whether one's membership in a "disfavored group"—that is, a group of individuals in a certain country or part of a country, all of whom share a common, protected characteristic, many of whom are mistreated, and a substantial number of whom are persecuted—is pertinent in determining whether an applicant for withholding of removal is eligible for that form of relief. The question arises because we have recognized that membership in a disfavored [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 05-71539
  7. Lynda Kruso v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. (1989)

    Robert F. Scoular, Martin J. Foley, and Hillary Arrow Booth, Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-counterplaintiffs-appellees.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 86-6670
  8. Khadija Mohammed v. Alberto R. Gonzales v. Alberto R. Gonzales (2005)

    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director; Keith I. Bernstein, Joshua E. Braunstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the respondent.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 03-70803
  9. United States v. Hinkson (2009)

    Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, CARLOS T. BEA, SANDRA S. IKUTA and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 05-30303
  10. Shobna Chandar Lata v. Immigration (2000)

    We must decide whether substantial evidence exists to support the Board of Immigration Appeals' adoption of an Immigration Judge's decision to deny an Indo-Fijian's petition for asylum.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 98-70814
  11. Samuel Martinez-Serrano v. Immigration (1996)

    Samuel Martinez-Serrano, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for a review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissal of his appeal and denial of his motion to reopen and reconsider.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 94-70674
  12. Miguel Angel Iturribarria v. Immigration (2003)

    Anthony C. Payne and Cindy S. Ferrier, Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division. United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent-appellee.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 02-70003
  13. T.W. Electrical Service v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Association (1987)

    Eight electrical contractors appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Pacific Electrical Contractors Association on all of the contractors' federal antitrust and related state claims. We affirm.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 86-1646
  14. Shrestha v. Holder (2010)

    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Anthony C. Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, and Colette J. Winston, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, for respondent Eric H. Holder, Jr.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 08-74751
  15. Christine L. Miller v. Nancy Gammie Fran Zito (2003)

    We took this case en banc to clarify the narrow scope of absolute immunity after Supreme Court decisions have taken an approach that is fundamentally inconsistent with the reasoning of our earlier circuit authority involving immunity for family-service social workers. Compare Babcock v. Tyler, 884 F.2d 497, 502-03 (9th Cir.1989), with Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127-29, 118 S.Ct. 502, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997), and Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 432-37, 113 S.Ct. [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 01-15491
  16. Padgett v. Wright (2009)

    The mandate in this case and the opinion filed on October 14, 2009, are hereby withdrawn. The opinion filed concurrently with this order will replace the October 14, 2009, opinion, and mandate shall issue forthwith.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 08-16720
  17. James F. Taylor v. Robert List (1989)

    James F. Taylor ("Taylor"), a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Taylor's 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983 action. The district court held that Taylor had failed to establish the existence of a material fact with regard to his constitutional claims and that certain defendants were not liable under section 1983 because there was no evidence of their personal participation in any deprivation of constitutional rights [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 87-15003
  18. Toguchi v. Chung (2004)

    We sympathize with the Toguchis on the loss of their son, Keane. However, we agree with the district court that Keane's death was not the result of Dr. Soon Hwang Chung's deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment in favor of Dr. Chung.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 03-15378
  19. 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2252 v. Immigration (1996)

    Walter Rafael Pineda, Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, California; Carolyn Patty Blum, Central American Refugee Defense Fund, Berkeley, California, for petitioners.


    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 91-70676
  20. Jeanette Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union (1994)

    Appellants are former members of the Board of Directors (collectively, the "Board" or "Board members") of Nevada Federal Credit Union ("NFCU"). On February 13, 1990, the Supervisory Committee of NFCU unanimously voted to suspend five of the Board members.1 Two weeks later, the NFCU membership voted to sustain the Supervisory Committee's action, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Federal Credit Union Act ("FCUA"), 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1751 et seq.

    Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 92-15807

1 of 5657 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5