14 Cited authorities

School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.
5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 4,809 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "overwhelming weight of authority is that the failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition does not turn the late filed documents into 'newly discovered evidence'" for a motion for reconsideration
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States
487 U.S. 250 (1988) Cited 1,136 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court cannot invoke its inherent power to circumvent the harmless-error inquiry prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52
United States v. Studley
783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 930 times
Holding that “a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient” to establish bias
Jackson v. Hayakawa
682 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1982) Cited 668 times
Holding that the Regents is "considered to be an instrumentalit[y] of the state, and therefore enjoy the same immunity as the state of California."
U.S. v. Smith
424 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 114 times
Holding that “[s]ubstantial proof of grand jury bias is required to overturn an indictment” and rejecting challenge where the defendant made “no factual allegation of actual bias on the part of any grand juror in his case”
Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 94 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding subsidiary was parent's agent for purposes of personal jurisdiction and as such jurisdiction over parent was proper
United States v. Warren
610 F.2d 680 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 187 times
Holding that district court abused its discretion by ordering prisoner serving state and federal sentences transferred into federal from state custody
Borzeka v. Heckler
739 F.2d 444 (9th Cir. 1984) Cited 165 times
Finding that a pro se litigant who had been given incorrect information regarding service from the district court had a justifiable excuse for failing to comply with the strict requirements of Rule 4
Daimlerchrysler AG v. Bauman
569 U.S. 946 (2013) Cited 2 times 3 Legal Analyses
No. 11–965. 2013-04-22 DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG, petitioner, v. Barbara BAUMAN, et al. Case below, 644 F.3d 909. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.
Mulvania v. C.I.R
769 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 27 times
Holding that "a notice of deficiency actually, physically received by a taxpayer is valid under § 6212 if it is received in sufficient time to permit the taxpayer, without prejudice, to file a petition to the Tax Court even though the notice is erroneously addressed"
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 69,891 times 124 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 52 - Harmless and Plain Error
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 Cited 2,191 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that "[a]ny error . . . that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded"
Section 4 - Arrest Warrant or Summons on a Complaint
Fed. R. Crim. P. 4 Cited 298 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concerning arrest warrants on a complaint
Section 9 - Arrest Warrant or Summons on an Indictment or Information
Fed. R. Crim. P. 9 Cited 50 times 1 Legal Analyses
Requiring heightened pleading standard for fraud

USA v. Liew et al

14 Cited authorities

Holding that the "overwhelming weight of authority is that the failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition does not turn the late filed documents into 'newly discovered evidence'" for a motion for reconsideration

Holding that a district court cannot invoke its inherent power to circumvent the harmless-error inquiry prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52

Holding that “a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient” to establish bias

Holding that the Regents is "considered to be an instrumentalit[y] of the state, and therefore enjoy the same immunity as the state of California."

Holding that “[s]ubstantial proof of grand jury bias is required to overturn an indictment” and rejecting challenge where the defendant made “no factual allegation of actual bias on the part of any grand juror in his case”

Holding subsidiary was parent's agent for purposes of personal jurisdiction and as such jurisdiction over parent was proper

Holding that district court abused its discretion by ordering prisoner serving state and federal sentences transferred into federal from state custody

Finding that a pro se litigant who had been given incorrect information regarding service from the district court had a justifiable excuse for failing to comply with the strict requirements of Rule 4

Holding that "a notice of deficiency actually, physically received by a taxpayer is valid under § 6212 if it is received in sufficient time to permit the taxpayer, without prejudice, to file a petition to the Tax Court even though the notice is erroneously addressed"

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Providing that "[a]ny error . . . that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded"

Concerning arrest warrants on a complaint

Requiring heightened pleading standard for fraud