green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
71.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…the 'informing function' of congress is that of informing itself about subjects susceptible to legislation, not that of informing the public.
at p. 531
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1990 ·
…the court will construe , however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested
at p. 527
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
United States v. Renzi
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
Id., at 1543 ; But see United States v. McDade, 28 F.3d 283 (3rd Cir.1994), discussed, infra. In determining whether a non-party Congressman was entitled to invoke the privilege to prevent disclosure of the identity of the source of an article that the Congressman had inserted into the Congressional Record, the Ninth Circuit concluded that obtaining information pertinent to potential legislation or investigation is one of the “things generally done in a session of the House ... concerning matters within the legitimate sphere ...” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 530 (9th …
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Fann v. Hon. kemp/american
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
not all conduct preceding a legislative act falls within the privilege.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Congressional Committee's Request for the President's Tax Returns Under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)
the 'informing function' of congress is that of informing itself about subjects susceptible to legislation, not that of informing the public.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Congressional Committee's Request for the President's Tax Returns Under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)
the 'informing function' of congress is that of informing itself about subjects susceptible to legislation, not that of informing the public.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: Epicenter Partners L.L.C. Gray Meyer Fannin L.L.C.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the history of rule 59(e) shows that 'alter or 15 amend' means a substantive change of mind by the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Citizens Union of New York v. Attorney General of New York
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
obtaining information pertinent to potential legislation ... is one of the 'things generally done in a session of the house,' ... concerning matters within the 'legitimate legislative sphere
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
(2×)
the court will construe , however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Danny Lee Warner v. Warden Harold May, Montana Attorney General
Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F. 2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Danny Lee Warner v. Warden Harold May, Montana Attorney General
Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F. 2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward B. Spencer v. Richard Milan
Because the Ninth Circuit has already granted 25 26 1 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058 , 27 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
De'Andre Ivison Weston v. Joana Motiu
However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) 15 prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the 16 litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951 . 17 Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) permits a party to amend a pleading to 18 change the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) 19 is satisfied and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and 20 complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: 21 (i) r…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hafer v. District Attorney
Liberally construed, Hafer seeks reconsideration of the 22 September 9, 2022 order dismissing her case.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies 23 the motion. 24 1 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 25 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Benoite v. Doerer
On March 10, 2025, the Court issued its Findings and Recommendation, currently pending 24 25 1 Plaintiff titles his motion as a “Motion to Reconsider - Motion to Appoint Counsel.” A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 26 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Baker v. Shahbazian
A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. 27 Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Puckett v. Kelso
To the extent discernable, Plaintiff requests the 26 Court to “assist and provide investigations.” Thus, the Court does not construe the pleading as a 27 motion for summary judgment but for the Court to assist Plaintiff with his case.1 28 1 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. eee EI OI EEE IE SIE RO 1 At the outset, the Court is not permitted to render legal advice to any litigant, including 2 | pro se litigants.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Puckett v. Dyer
No. 56 at 3-31). 25 26 1 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058 , 27 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. State of Idaho
Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Stewart v. De La Cruz
Thus, the Court does not consider the pleading to 24 be a Pretrial Statement because it wholly fails to comply with Local Rule 281. 25 26 1 A pleading’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058 , 27 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gotschall v. Salmonsen
Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F. 2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes
We [thus] 14 conclude that the privilege extends to questions about a Congressman’s sources of 15 information.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1983) 16 (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison
Although the Motion is styled 3 as a request for injunctive relief, “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican 4 Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone 5 Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mayen v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
This type of motion seeks “a substantive 14 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 15 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 16 an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly,” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 17 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) DePonte v. Stohl
No. 41). 25 26 1 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058 , 27 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Morrison v. County of Yellowstone
Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F. 2d 524, 527 (9" Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simon v. Superior Court of California
This type of motion seeks “a substantive 2 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 3 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 4 an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 5 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). 6 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BLF Land, LLC v. Frerich
See Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 615-16 (1972) (holding that senator could not be made to answer questions about events that occurred in senate subcommittee meeting); Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85 (1967) (noting that legislators “should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation’s results but also from the burden of defending themselves”); Schlitz v. Virginia, 854 F.2d 43, 46 (4th Cir. 1988) (holding that legislator could not be required to testify about matters of legislative conduct), overruled on other grounds in Berkley v. Common Council of City of …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Eleanor Fisher
Although Appellants styled their motion as a Rule 59 mo- tion, “nomenclature is not controlling.” Lucas v. Fla. Power & Light USCA11 Case: 22-13412 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024 Page: 14 of 14 14 Opinion of the Court 22-13412 Co., 729 F.2d 1300 , 1302 (11th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gutierrez v. Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC
Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (striking amended 25 26 2 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058 , 27 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Scott Warren Cohen
Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983). “[N]omenclature is not controlling, a court must construe whether a motion, however styled, is appropriate for the relief requested.” 8 Bordallo v. Reyes, 763 F.2d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arellano v. Jones
This type of motion seeks “a substantive 15 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 16 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 17 an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 18 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). 19 b.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Reed v. Paramo
Hoggett v. Univ. of Phoenix, 863 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th 19 Cir. 2017) (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 20 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison
Plaintiff did not file a reply to the opposition and time to do so has expired. 2 Local Rule 230(l). 3 Although Plaintiff style’s his Motion as a Motion for Injunctive Relief, a motion’s 4 “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th 5 Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 6 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Steward v. Pfeiffer
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that 8 Plaintiff’s Motion be denied in its entirety.1 9 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 10 A. Motion to Remand 11 As noted, Plaintiff styles his Motion as a “motion requesting amend.” A motion’s 12 “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th 13 Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 14 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Valles v. Attorney General of the United States
This type of motion seeks “a substantive 27 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 28 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 1 an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly,” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 2 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Beavers v. Hosey
A motion’s 8 “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th 9 Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 10 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Mills v. Clarke
A motion’s “nomenclature is not 25 controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea 26 Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Schilling v. Pelosi
Id. (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 528 (9th Cir. 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stein v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona
(2×)
A clerical error involves a “failure to memorialize part of [the court’s] 7 decision,” whereas a court’s alteration or amendment of a judgment involves a “substantive 8 change of mind by the court.” Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012), 9 (citing Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Bonta
This type of motion seeks “a substantive 9 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 10 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 11 an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly,” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 12 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Gregory W. Abbott
See id. at 12–13 (citing Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957) (discussing Congress’s power to conduct investigations); Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Lee, 775 F.2d 514 , 519–20 (3d Cir. 1985) (discussing the Speech and Debate Clause and 48 U.S.C. §1572 (d), the Virgin Islands’ legislative immunity statute); Miller v. Transamerican Press, 709 F.2d 524, 530 (9th Cir. 1983) (discussing legislative privilege as applied to members of Congress); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277, 1284 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCullock v. Scharr
This type of motion seeks “a substantive change of mind 11 by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Miller v. 12 Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is an extraordinary 13 remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 14 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arrant v. Zambrano
This type of motion seeks “a substantive 17 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 18 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 19 an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly,” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 20 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arrant v. Zambrano
This type of motion seeks “a substantive 16 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 17 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 18 an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 19 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mitchell v. Chula Vista Parole
This type of motion seeks “a substantive change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. 3 Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, 4 Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is an extraordinary remedy which should 5 be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). 6 Rule 59(e) may not be used to “‘relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present 7 evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Stevo Design, Inc. 8 v. SBR Mktg.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Goodlow, Jr. v. Camacho
This type of motion seeks “a 12 substantive change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th 13 Cir. 1988) (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 14 1983)), and “is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. 15 Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tracy v. Shinn
Therefore, “the court [must] construe it . . . to be the type proper for the relief 25 requested.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983). 26 Rule 59(e) states that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later 27 than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Ironmag Labs, LLC
Hoggett v. Univ. of Phx., 863 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A motion’s ‘nomenclature is not controlling.’ Instead, ‘we construe [the motion], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arrant v. Zambrano
This type of motion seeks “a substantive 6 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 7 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 8 an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly,” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 9 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivers v. Becerra
This type of motion seeks “a substantive 27 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 28 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 1 ||an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 2 || F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Ironmag Labs, LLC
Hoggett v. Univ. of Phx., 863 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A motion’s ‘nomenclature is not controlling.’ Instead, ‘we construe [the motion], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Margaret Thornberry, Patricia Farmer, Delores O'sullivan, and Linda Magel, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants
v.
Delta Air Lines, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
v.
Delta Air Lines, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
81-4182.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 23, 1983.
Published
Margaret THORNBERRY, Patricia Farmer, Delores O'Sullivan,
and Linda Magel, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
DELTA AIR LINES, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 81-4182, 81-4197.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 10, 1982.
Decided June 23, 1983.
Elizabeth G. Leavy, San Francisco, Cal., argued for Thornberry; Gerald E. Magaro, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.
Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr., Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, Cal., for Delta Air Lines.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert F. Peckham, Chief Judge.
Before FARRIS, FERGUSON and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[*~524]1
This court approved the award by the district court of attorneys' fees and costs in Thornberry v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 676 F.2d 1240 (1982).
[*~527]2
The Supreme Court on May 31, 1983 granted a petition for writ of certiorari, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2421, 75 L.Ed.2d --- (1983). The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded to this court for further consideration in light of Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).
[*~531]3
Upon due consideration, the judgments of the district court with regard to attorney fees and costs are vacated and the cases are remanded to the district court for further consideration in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court.