green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
41.5 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2022–2024 · 2 courts ·
…uestions of law are the subject of the court's instructions and not the subject of expert testimony.
at p. 1091
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
In re: Morry Waksberg M.D., Inc.
But see 12 Brown v. Baden (In re Yagman), 796 F.2d 1165, 1184 (9th Cir. 13 1986) (“There is no need to rigidly apply the factors set forth 14 in Kerr . . . but the court must make some evaluation of the 15 fee breakdown submitted by counsel.”), opinion amended on 16 denial of reh’g sub nom., In re Yagman, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 17 1986)).
discussed
Cited "but see"
In re: Morry Waksberg M.D., Inc.
But see 12 Brown v. Baden (In re Yagman), 796 F.2d 1165, 1184 (9th Cir. 13 1986) (“There is no need to rigidly apply the factors set forth 14 in Kerr . . . but the court must make some evaluation of the 15 fee breakdown submitted by counsel.”), opinion amended on 16 denial of reh’g sub nom., In re Yagman, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 17 1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Frazier v. Eagle Air Med Corporation
uestions of law are the subject of the court's instructions and not the subject of expert testimony.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Boutte
uestions of law are the subject of the court's instructions and not the subject of expert testimony.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Drummond v. Veritas Funding
uestions of law are the subject of the court's instructions and not the subject of expert testimony.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Egli v. Fojtik
although, under rule 12(b)(2), objections challenging the court's jurisdiction may be made at any time, the term 'jurisdiction' as used there refers solely to subject matter jurisdiction, not to personal jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Lateef Alagbada
the extradition process is one whereby a court gains personal jurisdiction over a defendant
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. Michael Baker International
uestions of law are the subject of the court's instructions and not the subject of expert testimony.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Presidential Hospitality, LLC v. Wyndham Hotel Grp., LLC
arties can consent to personal jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O'Hara v. Lott
It was an abuse of discretion to allow the [police-practices expert’s] testimony.”); see also S. Pine Helicopters, Inc. v. Phoenix Aviation Managers, Inc., 320 F.3d 838 , 841 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Matters of law are for the trial judge, and it is the judge’s job to instruct the jury on them.”); United States v. Klaphake, 64 F.3d 435, 438-39 (8th Cir. 1995) (“As a general rule, ‘questions of law are the subject of the court’s instructions and not the subject of expert testimony.’” (quoting United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir. 1986))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Einstein Bros Bagel Franchise Corporation v. J.F.C. Management Holdings LLC
Courts have long held that a party can consent to jurisdiction, see Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 473 n.14 (1985); United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1089 (10th Cir. 1986), and found similar forum selection clauses to waive a defendant’s objections to jurisdiction.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gray v. Biogen Inc.
Utah Aug. 1, 2022) (“It is well settled that a party can consent to the personal jurisdiction of a court.”); United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1089 (10th Cir. 1986) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keller Industrial, Inc. v. Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc.
Opining on the appropriateness of liquidated damages in this context is a legal, not factual, opinion. “[Q]uestions of law are the subject of the court’s instructions and not the subject of expert testimony.” United States v. Klaphake, 64 F.3d 435 , 438–39 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir. 1986)). (2) ECI also seeks to exclude Fallon’s opinions about the Subcontract’s meaning.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Castillo v. Perritt
(See Doc. 12 at 1-2.) In support of this assertion, Castillo cites United States v. Gatewood, 173 F.3d 983, 986 (6th Cir.1999), United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1088 (10th Cir.1986), United States v. Rosa-Ortiz, 348 F.3d 33, 36 (1st Cir.2003), United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229 , 1271 n. 31 (11th Cir.2007), and Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(B).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marko Rudi
R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3), (e); United States v. Marquez, 594 F.3d 855, 858 (11th Cir.2010); United States v. Anderson, 472 F.3d 662, 668 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 115 (2d Cir.2003); United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1088-89 (10th Cir.1986).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Isaac Marquez
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
See Anderson, 472 F.3d at 666 ; Puentes, 50 F.3d at 1573 ; Vreeken, 803 F.2d at 1088.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Teton Millwork Sales v. Schlossberg
(2×)
However, Mr. Schlossberg now consents to personal jurisdiction, see United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1089 (10th Cir. 1986), so we review only the Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stobie Creek Investments, LLC v. United States
The court substitutes its own assessment of the cases for defendant’s: Nieves-Villanueva v. Soto-Rivera, 133 F.3d 92, 100 (1 st Cir.1997) (ruling inadmissible expert testimony regarding holdings of cases on statutory categorization of public employees, but upholding trial verdict as product of harmless error); Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2d Cir. 1977) (reversing and remanding for trial court’s admission of expert testimony concerning legal obligations of parties to contract); United States v. Leo, 941 F.2d 181, 196 (3d Cir.1991) (upholding trial court’s limi…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lake
See Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 807-08 (10th Cir.1988) (en banc); United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Keith E. Anderson
United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092, 1097-98 (9th Cir.1989). 3 “[T]he doctrine of specialty implicates the question of whether there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant as a result of the extradition process.” SEC v. Eurobond Exch., 13 F.3d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 432-33 , 7 S.Ct. 234 , 30 L.Ed. 425 (1886); United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1088-89 (10th Cir.1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anderson
United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1989).3 3 As previously discussed, the manner and timing of Anderson’s transfer to the United States did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over 20022 UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON “[T]he doctrine of specialty implicates the question of whether there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant as a result of the extradition process.” SEC v. Eurobond Exch., 13 F.3d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Raus- cher, 119 U.S. 407, 432-33 (1886); United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir. 1986); United …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arney
Cf. United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir.1986) (excluding expert testimony on tax and banking law where government’s straightforward theory undermined need for expert testimony).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 356, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 565 Michael L. Salstrom, and Gregory Lamont Gudger v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. Financial Assistance Incorporation, a Washington Corporation Continental Credit, a Washington Corporation Larry Aldi Gus Carlson Citibank (South Dakota) Na, a South Dakota Corporation, Michael L. Salstrom, and Dean Browning Webb v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. Financial Assistance Incorporation, a Washington Corp.
(2×)
In some situations, liability under proper sanctioning authority will not be immediately apparent or may not be precisely and accurately discernible until a later time." Id. at 1183.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Salstrom v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc.
(2×)
In some situations, liability under proper sanctioning authority will not be immediately apparent or may not be precisely and accurately discernible until a later time.” Id. at 1183.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ervin J. Klaphake
As a general rule, “questions of law are the subject of the court’s instructions and not the subject of expert testimony.” United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir.1986), *439 ce rt. denied, 479 U.S. 1067, 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987); see also, e.g., United States v. Ingredient Technology Corp., 698 F.2d 88, 97 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1131 , 103 S.Ct. 3111 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Huey Don Odum v. Bobby Boone Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
In deciding whether a particular instruction is invalid under Sandstrom , the inquiry is “whether any ‘reasonable juror could have given the presumption conclusive or persuasion-shifting effect.’ ” United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1092 (10th Cir.1986) (quoting Sandstrom, 442 U.S. at 519 , 99 S.Ct. at 2456-57 ), ce rt. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pamela Jones, Katresa Marie Johnson, Mark J. Scott, Jr.
United States v. Sturmoski, 971 F.2d 452, 459 (10th Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987)); United States v. Barbee, 968 F.2d 1026, 1031 (10th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jackson
The exclusion of evidence is reversible error only when “ ‘the evidence is so significant that it *1197 results in “actual prejudice” because it has a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” ’ ” United States v. Payne, 978 F.2d 1177, 1181 (10th Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Fingado, 934 F.2d at 1164 (quoting in turn United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1090 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2441 , 124 L.Ed.2d 659 (1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Eurobond Exchange, Ltd., and Gerald L. Rogers, AKA J.K. Glenn
(2×)
United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 432-33 , 7 S.Ct. 234, 247-48 , 30 L.Ed. 425 (1886); accord, United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1009 , 107 S.Ct. 652 , 93 L.Ed.2d 707 (1986); United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1088-89 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas E. Rackstraw
“It has long been held that a defendant who takes the stand in his own behalf cannot then claim the privilege against cross-examination on matters reasonably related to the subject matter of his direct examination.” McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 215 , 91 S.Ct. 1454, 1471 , 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971) (citing Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 , 78 S.Ct. 622 , 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958); Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U.S. 304, 314-16 , 20 S.Ct. 944, 948-49 , 44 L.Ed. 1078 (1900)), vacated in part on other grounds, 408 U.S. 941 -42, 92 S.Ct. 2873 , 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972); United States v. V…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Reginald Charles Greene
See United States v. Hollis, 971 F.2d 1441 , 1452 n. 5 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1580 (1993); United States v. Simpson, 950 F.2d 1519, 1524 (10th Cir.1991); United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1090, 1092 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 (1987); United States v. Thoma, 713 F.2d 604, 606-07 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047 (1984); United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233, 242-43 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 825 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James C. Payne
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
We review for an abuse of discretion and will reverse “only if the exclusion of the evidence is so significant that it results in ‘actual prejudice’ because it has a ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’ ” United States v. Fingado, 934 F.2d 1163, 1164 (10th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1090 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987)), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 320 , 116 L.Ed.2d 262 (1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pamela Sue Hollis, United States of America v. William T. \Tom\" Hollis"
The claim is meritless, as this court has already upheld this instruction against the same challenge in United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1092 (10th Cir.1986), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987). 6 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Walt Anthony Sturmoski, A/K/A Anthony W. Williams
United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
A.E. ex rel. Evans v. Independent School District No. 25
Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 809 (10th Cir.1988). “[Qjues-tions of law are the subject of the court’s instructions and not the subject of expert testimony.” United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir.1986), cert. den., 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. Independent School District No. 25, of Adair County, Oklahoma
Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 809 (10th Cir.1988). "[Q]uestions of law are the subject of the court's instructions and not the subject of expert testimony." United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir.1986), cert. den., 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Donald G. Fingado
We will reverse only if the exclusion of the evidence is so significant that it results in “actual prejudice” because it has a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1090 (10th Cir.1986) (quoting United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 , 106 S.Ct. 725, 731 , 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lawrence Louis Levy
Rauscher "gave extradited defendants a right to claim the rule’s protection.” United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1088 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987); accord Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 477 reporters’ note 1 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fred F. Solomon, Jr., United States of America v. George G. Nicoladze
See Crooks, 804 F.2d at 1449 ; United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987); United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1420, 1434 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lehder-Rivas
The rule of speciality is included in the Treaty in Article 15, which provides that “[a] person extradited under the Treaty shall not be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the Requesting State for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted ... unless [an exception is satisfied].” Speciality is a right that belongs to the country that authorized extradition, see Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 906 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 884 , 94 S.Ct. 204 , 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973), and it may be waived by that nation, see United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 14…
cited
Cited "see"
State Bank of Texas v. Sam Parabia
See In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1182 , amended by, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept.
See Yagman v. Republic Ins. (“Yagman II”), 987 F.2d 28 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Yagman (“Yagman I”), 796 2d 1 |}1165, 1179 (9th Cir.), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986), mandamus granted by 2 || Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Real v. Yagman, 484 U.S. 963 3 || (1987)) (citing United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 4 ||U.S. 1012 (1980)).
cited
Cited "see"
Curtis Oswalt v. Resolute Industries Inc
See Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165 , 1184-85 opinion amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
New England Surfaces v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.
See In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1187 (9th Cir.1986), as amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (reserving "damages under section 1927” to "where there is no obvious violation of the technical rules, but where, within the rules, the proceeding is conducted in bad faith for the purpose of delay or increasing costs”); Gregory P. Joseph, Sanctions: The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse § 23(B)(3)(a) (2008) ("Section 1927 is generally considered an inappropriate tool for remedying discovery abuse that is subject to sanction under Rule 26(g) or Rule 37.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Richard P. Dellinger Dorathy M. Dellinger, Debtors, John Sutera v. Dorathy M. Dellinger
See Lloyd v. Schlag, 884 F.2d 409, 413 (9th Cir.1989). 2 However, "the district court should at a minimum provide notice,' take 'prompt action' to assess sanctions during the course of the trial, and issue an award 'properly itemized in terms of the perceived misconduct and the sanctioning authority.' " Id. (quoting Yagman v. Baden (In re Yagman), 796 F.2d 1165, 1183-84 (9th Cir.), as amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (1986)). 7 Here, with respect to notice, Sutera had the opportunity to oppose the motions for sanctions.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dennis Lee Hardwell, United States of America v. Marcel A. Hardwell, United States of America v. Dennis L. Hardwell, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Frederick D. Bowens, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. United States of America v. Adam Stallings, AKA Gene Walker, United States of America v. Dennis L. Hardwell Marcel A. Hardwell, Frederick D. Bowens Adam Stallings, AKA Gene Walker
See United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1092-93 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hardwell
See United States v. Vreeken, 803 F.2d 1085, 1092-93 (10th Cir.1986), ce rt. denied 479 U.S. 1067 , 107 S.Ct. 955 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Sergio Santos, I. Singh Aulakh v. Melvin Coley, AKA Butch Coley Jack Tyler, Undersheriff County of Tulare, Sergio Santos v. Melvin Coley, AKA Butch Coley Jack Tyler, Undersheriff County of Tulare
See In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1185 (9th Cir.), amended 803 F.2d 1085 (1986); In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 524 (4th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul Suren Mosesian, United States of America v. Lawrence Clay Rocker
See In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1182 (9th Cir.), modified, 803 F.2d 1085 (1986), mandamus granted, 815 F.2d 575 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Zimmerman v. Bishop Estate
See In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1182-84 (9th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir.1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Matter of Stephen YAGMAN, Appellant, Jerry BROWN and Gerry Fleisher, Plaintiffs,
v.
Michael BADEN and Sidney Weinberg, Defendants-Appellees
v.
Michael BADEN and Sidney Weinberg, Defendants-Appellees
84-5957.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 6, 1986.
Stephen Yagman, Los Angeles, Cal., pro se., Ramsey Clark, New York City, for plaintiffs., Harry Schneider, Woodland Hills, Cal, Anthony A. De Corso, Mark E. Beck, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Anderson, Pregerson, Wiggins.
Cited by 35 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. New Mexico (1) · W.D. Washington (1)
The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for a rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for en banc rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App.P. 35(b). The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.
With this order, the slip opinion filed August 13,1986 [796 F.2d 1165], is amended by adding a new footnote 26, on page 46 [p. 1188] at the end of the second sentence in the second full paragraph ending with “sanctioning authority,” and renumbering footnote 26 at the end of the paragraph to be footnote 27, as follows:
“Nothing we have said in this opinion should be construed to impair in any way, nor to preclude, an award based on bad faith conduct under the court’s inherent power, if found to be appropriate. See, e.g., Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 [100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488] (1980).”