green
Positive treatment
18.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hudson v. King County Housing Authority
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
As 17 to accrual of the claim, “[t]he general federal rule is that a limitations period begins to run when 18 the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Trotter, 19 704 F.2d at 1143.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Woods v. Kirsch
Cal. 2019). 14 Claims under § 1983 accrue when a plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the injury which is 15 the basis of the action.” Trotter v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Local 13, 16 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 17 2009). 18 Defendant alleges that plaintiff’s action against him accrued on November 27, 2017, at the 19 latest, when plaintiff received two contradictory diagnoses from Dr. Tesluk, and plaintiff’s 20 complaints to defendant about his worsening vision were “knowingly” ignore…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chung v. Intellectsoft Group Corporation
Cal. July 30, 2018) (citing and quoting Trotter v. Int’l 10 Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1983)). 11 Chung’s motion does not dispute that the original complaint and the counterclaim arise from the 12 same incident.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Keel v. Pine
Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Trotter v. Int’l 4 Longshoreman’s and Warehouseman’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1983)). 5 The third amended complaint alleges that on May 25, 2013, Fleming told plaintiff that he 6 was going to “bury [plaintiff] in administrative segregation” because plaintiff had sued other 7 correctional officers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Norgaard-Larsen v. Phoenix, City of
Under federal law, the time limit 21 on a cause of action begins to run when the plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the 22 injury which is the basis of the action.” Trotter v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & 23 Warehousemen’s Union, Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Villamizar v. Senior Care Pharmacy Services, Inc.
Cal. 2004) (“Under federal law, a cause of action generally accrues when the plaintiff 15 ‘knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.’”) (quoting Trotter v. 16 Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1983)). 17 Defendants argue the FAC is untimely on its face, as it was filed on October 21, 2016 — 18 more than two months past the expiration of the limitations period on August 15, 2016.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. City of Shasta Lake
Under federal law, a cause of action generally accrues when the plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Trotter v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doggett v. Perez
Under federal law, a cause of action generally accrues when the plaintiff; “knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Trotter v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Ware housemen’s Union, Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir.1983). 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Smith
The judge must recuse himself, even in the absence of a party complaint, if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Story, 716 F.2d 1088, 1091 (6th Cir.1983) (quoting Trotter v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kendrix M. Easley v. University of Michigan Board of Regents Terry Sandalow, Individually and as Dean of Law School
“Recusal is mandated ... only if a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Id. (quoting Trotter v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
14 Collier bankr.cas.2d 118, Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,975 in Re Manoa Finance Company, Inc., a Hawaii Corp. Debtor. Charles E. Klenske, Trustee in Reorganization v. George W.H. Goo Robert S. Teramoto, and Hirotoshi Yamamoto
Trotter v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 , 101 S.Ct. 568 , 66 L.Ed.2d 470 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Klenske v. Goo
Trotter v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 , 101 S.Ct. 568 , 66 L.Ed.2d 470 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Midwest Petroleum Co. v. American Petrofina, Inc.
Defendants argue that the statute is silent on the question of accrual and that this Court should apply the "general federal rule ... that a limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action." Trotter v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Compton v. Ide
Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Cline v. Brusset, 661 F.2d at 110 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Compton v. Ide
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Cline v. Brusset, 661 F.2d at 110 . 12 We see no reason here to depart from the general rule.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Center for Auto Safety v. Federal Trade Commission
Longshoreman’s Union, Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir.1983); Potashnick v. Port City Construction Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1111 (5th Cir.1980). 13 In support of this contention, plaintiffs cite the recusal policies of sixteen high-level officials which, they claim, suggest that these individuals would not have participated in the GM defects case had they been in Miller’s position.
discussed
Cited "see"
(PC) Parks v. Abdur-Rahman
See Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting 3 Trotter v. Int’l Longshoreman’s and Warehouseman’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 4 1983)). 5 In California there is a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ra Medical Systems, Inc. v. Photomedex, Inc.
See Trotter v. Int'l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141 , 1143 (9th Cir.1983) (noting that under California law a statute of limitations is suspended or tolled for defendant’s then unbarred counterclaims upon plaintiffs filing the complaint).
cited
Cited "see"
Kendrix M. Easley v. University of Michigan Board of Regents Terry Sandalow, Individually, and as Dean of the Law School
See Trotter v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Robert Scott Gardner v. International Telegraph Employees Local No. 9
See Trotter v. International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141 , 1143 n. 2 (9th Cir.1983); Copitas v. Retail Clerks Int’l Assn., 618 F.2d 1370 , 1372 (9th Cir.1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Stolz v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local Union No. 971
See Trotter v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143, n. 2 (9th Cir.1983); Copitas v. Retail Clerks International Ass’n, 618 F.2d 1370, 1372 (9th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stolz v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local Union No. 971
(2×)
See Trotter v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141 at 1143, n. 2 (9th Cir.1983); Copitas v. Retail Clerks International Association, 618 F.2d 1370, 1372 (9th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
See e.g., Trotter v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union Local, 13, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (applying constructive discovery to the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959); Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty., 801 F.2d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 1986) (applying constructive discovery to claims under § 1983); Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758 , 760–61 (9th Cir. 1991) (same); Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States of America
v.
State of Washington
v.
State of Washington
81-3111.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 27, 1983.
Published
UNITED STATES of America, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 81-3111.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
April 27, 1983.
Edward B. Mackie, Deputy Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash., for defendants-appellants.
William A. White, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Alan C. Stay, Seattle, Wash., for amicus curiae Hoh/Quileute/Nugually Tribe.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, WRIGHT, CHOY, GOODWIN, WALLACE, SNEED, KENNEDY, ANDERSON, HUG, TANG, SKOPIL, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, FARRIS, PREGERSON, ALARCON, POOLE, FERGUSON, NELSON, CANBY, BOOCHEVER, NORRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
ORDER FOR PUBLICATION
1
Upon the vote of a majority of the regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case shall be reheard by an en banc panel of the court pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals 694 F.2d 1374, for the Ninth Circuit. The previous three-judge panel assignment is hereby withdrawn.