green
Positive treatment
31.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vaughn v. Teran
See Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key 27 Bank of Maine, 112 F.3d 538 , 558 n. 28 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 913 (1997); TNT 28 Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company
P. 16(a), (c); Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 15 276 F. 3d 1131, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002); TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 16 1986); In re Suchy, 786 F.2d 900 , 902–03 (9th Cir.1985); In re Springpark Assoc., 623 F.2d 1377 , 17 1380 (9th Cir.) (superseded on other grounds by statute, as stated in In re Villa Madrid, 110 18 B.R. 919 , 922 n. 3 (9th Cir. BAP.1990)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956 , 101 S.Ct. 364 , 66 L.Ed.2d 221 19 (1980). 20 12.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. State of Montana
(NORML) v. Mullen, 796 F.2d 276, 276 (9th Cir. 1986) (ordering that an injunction remain in place while the district court considers whether the injunction should be modified).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amana Global Company v. King County
(Pls.’ Resp. at 15-16.) Plaintiffs also argue that an award of attorneys’ fees 10 “is not equitable” because their position was “well grounded in fact, and warranted by existing 11 law or a good faith argument, and not interposed for any improper purpose.” (Id. at 16.) 12 “The district court ha[s] inherent power to enforce the agreement in settlement of 13 litigation before it, [including] authority to award damages for failure to comply with the 14 settlement agreement.” TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Pittman v. Kamen
LEGAL STANDARDS 9 A District Court has the authority to “‘enforce on motion a settlement agreement entered 10 into by the litigants while the litigation is pending before it.’” In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 11 22 F.3d 954 , 957 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888 , 890 12 (9th Cir. 1987) (same); TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986) 13 (recognizing the Court’s “inherent power to enforce [an] agreement in settlement of litigation 14 before it”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pruco Life Insurance Company v. California Energy Development, Inc.
Software, Inc., 640 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 26 2011) (citing TNT Mktg., 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager
Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations 20 omitted). “[T]he district court may enforce only complete settlement agreements.” Callie, 829 21 F.2d at 890 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Yeager v. Parsons Behle & Latimer
Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations 20 omitted). “[T]he district court may enforce only complete settlement agreements.” Callie, 829 21 F.2d at 890 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lemberg v. San Francisco Opera Association
As the content of those 2 communications is undisputed, the primary issue before the Court is whether they give 3 rise to an enforceable contract, specifically, whether they show Lemberg accepted the 4 Opera’s settlement offer. 5 LEGAL STANDARD 6 District courts have the inherent power to enforce settlement agreements in 7 actions pending before them, see TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Aaresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th 8 Cir. 1986), and “[t]he moving party has the burden of demonstrating that the parties 9 formed a legally enforceable settlement agreement,” see Woods v. Carey, No. 2:04-cv- 10 1225…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lisa Ostella v. Orly Taitz
P. 70(a), holding a party in contempt, id. 70(e), or awarding damages for failure to comply, TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tule Lake Committee v. City of Tulelake
Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). 27 Generally, “[t]he construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by 28 principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” Jeff D. v. Andrus, 1 899 F.2d 753 , 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Remark Holdings, Inc. v. China Branding Group Limited
“The construction and enforcement of 18 settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law [that] apply to interpretation of 19 contracts generally.”16 Nevada law imposes on all parties to a contract a duty of good faith and 20 21 13 TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986). 22 14 Gardiner v. A.H.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Takiguchi v. MRI International, Inc.
See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 586 , 122 S.Ct. 1700 , 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002); Nat’l Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 796 F.2d 276, 276 (9th Cir.1986). 1 *921 The Suzukis also argue that the preliminary injunction is overbroad because it impermissibly freezes assets for the purpose of securing a potential award of legal damages.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tidwell v. A & M Check Cashing, Inc. (In re Arrington)
See Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key Bank of Maine, 112 F.3d 538 , 558 n. 28 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 913 , 118 S.Ct. 297 , 139 L.Ed.2d 229 (1997); TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986); Hayes, 196 F.3d at 1253-54 (vacating liquidated damages award that was grossly disproportionate to damages reasonably expected to flow from breach of settlement agreement); Paul Dean Corp. v. Kilgore, 252 Ga.App. 587 , 556 S.E.2d 228, 234 (2001) (punitive damages not recoverable for breach of settlement agreement even if breaching party acted in bad faith).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marks-Foreman v. Reporter Publishing Co.
See In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir.1994); Collie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir.1987); TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samson v. Allstate Insurance
While both lay and legal definitions of the word support the conclusion that “suit” indicates a proceeding in a court of law, see also TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986), that is less relevant than the policy language itself, which clearly distinguishes between suits and claims.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McEnany v. West Delaware County Community School District
TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986) (court awarded damages including over $10,000 in attorney fees).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davies v. Grossmont Union High School District
We have noted that a district court may enforce a settlement agreement “in contempt proceedings for violation of a court order approving the settlement and commanding or enjoining particular conduct.” TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas Davies v. Grossmont Union High School District
We have noted that a district court may enforce a settlement agreement "in contempt proceedings for violation of a court order approving the settlement and commanding or enjoining particular conduct." TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilkinson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilkinson v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation
TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Farmers State Bank v. Miner (In Re Monson)
In re Snyder, 22 B.R. 29 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn.1982); Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806 (5th Cir.1980); TNT Marketing, Inc., v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278, 279 (9th Cir.1986) (A court may invoke rule 70 sanctions on its own motion, in lieu of relief otherwise requested, provided that sufficient notice is given to the party against which sanctions are to be applied.) Rule 7070, and its counterpart, Rule 70, F.R.
cited
Cited "see"
Gonzalez v. Ahern
See TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Aaresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Maurice Monk v. County
See TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Aaresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Ramirez v. TD Dans Corp.
See id. at 4 (citing TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986)).
cited
Cited "see"
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
See Nat’l Org. for Reform of Marijuana L. v. Mullen, 796 F.2d 276, 276 (9th Cir. 1986). 2.
cited
Cited "see"
Metallicus, Inc. v. Proton Technologies AG
See TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Aaresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th 24 Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Benicia Port Terminal Co.
See TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Aaresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Lesnik v.Eisenmann SE
See TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Aaresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Marani v. Cramer
The standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion are 2 well known and not in dispute.1 With respect to a motion to enforce settlement agreement: “It is 3 well settled that a district court has the equitable power to enforce summarily an agreement to 4 settle a case pending before it.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations 5 omitted); see TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276 , 278 (9th Cir.1986); Metronet Services 6 Corp. v. U.S. West Communications, 329 F.3d 986,1013-1014 (9th Cir. 2003) (cert. granted and 7 judgment vacated on other grounds by Quest Corp. v. Metronet…
discussed
Cited "see"
Ma v. Department of Education
(2×)
See TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986). 24 Additionally, “[a]lthough the court normally exercises its enforcement power in response to a 25 motion to enforce the agreement, it may do so in contempt proceedings for violation of a court 26 order approving the settlement and commanding or enjoining particular conduct.” Id. (citing 1 Gardiner v. A.H.
discussed
Cited "see"
Riley v. State
See National Organization For Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) v. Mullen, 608 F. Supp. 945 (N.D.Cal. 1985) (highly disruptive character of low helicopter flights distinguishes them from common airplane *288 overflights to which society is accustomed), remanded, 796 F.2d 276 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jordan v. C.C.A.N. Financial, Inc.
See, e.g., TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 10 1986).3 The Court would be well within its discretion not to retain jurisdiction over the parties’ 11 dispute concerning breach of the settlement agreement, especially given that the undersigned had 12 no part in the settlement discussions at issue.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key Bank of Maine
See, e.g., TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key Bank of Maine, John Palmer, Palmer Management Corporation, and Palmer Development Corporation, Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key Bank of Maine, Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key Bank of Maine, John Schiavi, Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key Bank of Maine
See, e.g., TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Penobscot Indian v. Palmer
See, e.g., TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Torres v. Costich
See, e.g., TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276 (9th Cir.1986) (affirming award of fees where stipulated judgment provided that prevailing party would be entitled to fees is “suit is brought to enforce or interpret any part of this stipulation or judgment”); Schmidt v. Zazzara, 544 F.2d 412, 414 (9th Cir.1976) (affirming award of attorney’s fees because district court’s finding that defendants’ “attempt to repudiate the settlement agreement did involve the requisite bad faith so as to make this an exceptional case” was fully justified); GRE Talbot Bird & Co. v. M.V.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jim R. Keeling, Dba River City Mechanical v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 162, an Unincorporated Association
See, e.g., TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir.1986) (district courts retain inherent power to enforce settlement agreements, including award of specific performance or damages upon breach).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Broadhurst
Compare NORML v. Mullen, 608 F.Supp. 945, 957 (C.D.Cal. 1985) (highly disruptive character of low helicopter flights distinguishes them from common airplane overflights to which society is accustomed), remanded, 796 F.2d 276 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Broadhurst
Compare NORML v. Mullen, 608 F.Supp. 945, 957 (C.D.Cal.1985) (highly disruptive character of low helicopter flights distinguishes them from common airplane overflights to which society is accustomed), remanded, 796 F.2d 276 (9th Cir.1986). 26 What a person knowingly exposes to public view is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS (NORML), Et Al., Plaintiffs/Appellees,
v.
Francis M. MULLEN, Et Al., Defendants/Appellants
v.
Francis M. MULLEN, Et Al., Defendants/Appellants
85-1883.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 1, 1986.
R. Elaine Leitner, Keker & Brockett, San Francisco, Cal., Marshall Warren Krause, Larkspur, Cal., for plaintiffs/appellees., Catherine A. Rivlin, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants/appellants.
Browning, Fletcher, Nelson.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
ORDER
This case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the preliminary injunction in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in California v. Ciraolo, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986), and Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986). In addition, the district court may choose to review the specific terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 in light of those same two cases.
The district court has thirty days to make any modifications to the preliminary injunction it deems necessary. Until it does, however, the entire preliminary injunction shall remain in effect. In all other respects, we sustain the preliminary injunction under the standard of our circuit that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the seriousness of the questions involved and the balance of hardships required it. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir.1984). We retain jurisdiction to review any appeals from the modification of the preliminary injunction.