green
Positive treatment
17.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alfred Minasyan v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
See Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47 , 52-53 n. 8, 98 S.Ct. 95 , 54 L.Ed.2d 228 (1977); Purganan v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 269, 270-71 (9th Cir.1982); see also Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593, 599 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Minasyan v. Gonzales
See Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47 , 52- 53 n.8 (1977); Purganan v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 269, 270-71 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593, 599 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruta Marie Kahn v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
See Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47 , 52-53 n. 8, 98 S.Ct. 95 , 99 n. 8, 54 L.Ed.2d 228 (1977); Purganan v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 269, 271 (9th Cir.1982) (construing California law on marital status to determine eligibility for child's insurance benefits under Social Security Act).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruta Marie Kahn v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
See Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47 , 52-53 n. 8, 98 S.Ct. 95 , 99 n. 8, 54 L.Ed.2d 228 (1977); Purganan v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 269, 271 (9th Cir.1982) (construing California law on marital status to determine eligibility for child's insurance benefits under Social Security Act).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Joe Hernandez-Arias
(4×)
See Purganan v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 269, 270 (9th Cir. 1982) (noting that generally annulment relates back and “erase[s] the marriage and all its implications from the outset”).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Joe Hernandez-Arias
(4×)
See Purganan v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 269, 270 (9th Cir. 1982) (noting that generally annulment relates back and “erase[s] the marriage and all its implications from the outset”).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joe Hernandez-Arias
(2×)
See Purganan v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 269, 270 (9th Cir. 1982) (noting that generally annulment relates back and “erase[s] the marriage and all its implications from the outset”).
cited
Cited "see"
Harris v. Railroad Retirement Board
See Purganan v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 269 (9th Cir.1982); Folsom v. Pearsall, 245 F.2d 562 (9th Cir.1957).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Chae Kim Ro and Chin Deung Ro v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See also Perez v. I&NS, 643 F.2d 640, 641 (9th Cir.), amended, 665 F.2d 269 (9th Cir. 1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Francis
v.
PEREZ and Hilda B. Perez, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
v.
PEREZ and Hilda B. Perez, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
80-7191.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 7, 1981.
665 F.2d 269
Published
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
Before FARRIS and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and CRAIG, * District Judge.
The opinion filed April 23, 1981 (643 F.2d 640) is amended as follows: Delete the final paragraph on page 641, beginning “The failure of the Perezes ...” in its entirety.
*
Honorable Walter E. Craig, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.