green
Positive treatment
19.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Borchardt Rifle Corp. v. Cook
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Cook argues that a violation is willful if the “dealer understands the requirements of the law but knowingly fails to follow them or was indifferent to them.” Memo, at 12 (quoting Cucchiara v. Sec’y of Treasury, 652 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1981)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Vineland Fireworks Co. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
(4×)
Dev., 387 F.3d at 464; Cucchiara, 652 F.2d at 30; Stein’s, 649 F.2d at 469 ; Lewin, 590 F.2d at 269 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vineland Fireworks v. Bur Alcohol Tobacco
(2×)
Dev., 387 F.3d at 464; Cucchiara, 652 F.2d at 30; Stein’s, 649 F.2d at 469 ; Lewin, 590 F.2d at 269 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kuss v. United States, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
However, the Court further held that “summary judgment may be appropriate upon de novo review on the basis of the administrative record when no substantial reason to receive additional evidence is present and when material facts developed at the administrative hearing, which the court also concludes justify non-renewal, are not substantially drawn into question by the party petitioning for review.” 3 Bridges, 216 F.Supp.2d at 657 (citing Cucchiara v. Secretary of the Treasury, 652 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1981) (internal quotations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Willingham Sports, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
(2×)
Corp., 387 F.3d at 464-65; Stein’s, Inc., 649 F.2d at 467 ; Cucchiara v. Sec’y of the Treasury, 652 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1981); Lewin, 590 F.2d at 269 ; see also Prino, 606 F.2d at 451 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Appalachian Resources Development Corp. v. McCabe
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Cuchiara, 652 F.2d at 30; Prino, 606 F.2d at 451 ; Lewis, 590 F.2d at 269 ; see also Perri v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 637 F.2d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir.1981); Stein’s, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 649 F.2d 463, 467 (7th Cir. 1980); 3 Bridges, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.Supp.2d 655, 657-58 (E.D.Ky.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
3 Bridges, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
However, summary judgment may be appropriate upon de novo review on the basis of the administrative record when no substantial reason to receive additional evidence is present and when “material facts developed at the administrative hearing, which the court also concludes justify non-renewal, are not substantially drawn into question by the party petitioning for review.” Cucchiara v. Secretary of the Treasury, 652 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Al's Loan Office, Inc. v. United States Department of the Treasury
(2×)
In Cucchiara v. Secretary of the Treasury, 652 F.2d 28, 30, n. 1 (9th Cir.1981), the Ninth Circuit, citing concerns of judicial economy and an aversion to repetitive hearings, approved the use of summary judgment in de novo reviews on the basis of the administrative record when no substantial reason to receive additional evidence is present “and the ‘material facts developed at the administrative hearing, which the court also concludes justify nonrenewal’ are not substantially drawn into question by the party petitioning for review.” Id. at 30 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Posey v. Garland (JRG1)
What matter are his actions at the time the violations occurred.” (citations omitted)); see id. (“The fact that [the petitioner] has spent a great deal of money trying to correct his faulty recordkeeping system, after the violations[] . . . is immaterial to the question of willfulness at the time the violations occurred.” (quoting Cucchiara v. Sec’y of the Treasury, 652 F.2d 28 , 30 (9th Cir. 1981))).
cited
Cited "see"
Cew Properties v. U.S. Department of Justice
Ill. 1973)); accord Cucchiara v. Sec’y of Treasury, 652 F.2d 28 , 30 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Am.
discussed
Cited "see"
Procaccio v. Lambert
See Cucchiara v. Sec’y of Treasury, 652 F.2d 28 , 30 (9th Cir.1981) (“The fact that [petitioner] has spent a great deal of money trying to correct his faulty recordkeeping system, after the violations, ... is immaterial to the question of willfulness at the time the violations occurred.”); Sturdy v. Bentsen, No. 97-1786, 1997 WL 611765, at *2 , 1997 U.S.App.
discussed
Cited "see"
Appalachian Resources Development Corporation v. Mccabe
See Al's Jewelry, 1996 WL 683528, at *4 (citing Cucchiara v. Sec'y of the Treasury, 652 F.2d 28, 29 (9th Cir.1981); Prino v. Simon, 606 F.2d 449, 451 (4th Cir.1979); Lewin v. Blumenthal, 590 F.2d 268, 269 (8th Cir.1979)).
cited
Cited "see"
Sturdy v. Bentsen
See Cucchiara, 652 F.2d at 30. 8 After carefully reviewing Sturdy's remaining points on appeal, we find them to be without merit. 9 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 1 The Honorable Catherine D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Al's Jewelry & Loan, Inc. v. United States of America, Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
See Cucchiara v. Secretary of the Treasury, 652 F.2d 28, 29 (9th Cir.1981) (where the applicant willfully failed to comply with ATF regulations, the district court properly affirmed ATF's refusal to renew that applicant's firearms license), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 (1982); Prino v. Simon, 606 F.2d 449, 451 (4th Cir.1979) (affirming the district court's decision that ATF properly denied an application for renewal due to the applicant's willful violations of the federal gun control laws); Lewin v. Blumenthal, 590 F.2d 268, 269 (8th Cir.1979) (where substantial evidence showed that an applicant…
cited
Cited "see"
T.T. Salvage Auction Co. v. Secretary, the United States Department of the Treasury
See Cucchiara v. Secretary of the Treasury, 652 F.2d 28 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 , 102 S.Ct. 1448 , 71 L.Ed.2d 662 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Augustson v. Holder
(2×)
See, e.g., Cucchiara v. Secretary of the Treasury, 652 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Homestake Mining Company, a Corporation
v.
Washington Public Power Supply System
v.
Washington Public Power Supply System
79-4576.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 27, 1981.
Published
HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 79-4576.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 9, 1981.
Decided July 27, 1981.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Charles B. Renfrew, District Judge, Presiding.
Phillip H. Ginsberg, Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin & Riley, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Eric W. Jorgensen, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GOODWIN, SKOPIL, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[*~28]1
We affirm the judgment of the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its decision, reported at 476 F.Supp. 1162 (N.D.Cal.1979).
[*~30]2
AFFIRMED.