Ron Nichols v. Robert A. Mosbacher, Sec'y of Com., 959 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Ron Nichols v. Robert A. Mosbacher, Sec'y of Com., 959 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4710, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6688 United States of America, Ex Rel., Sequoia Orange Company Lisle Babcock v. Baird-Neece Packing Corporation Sunkist Growers Inc. Sunland Packing House Company San Joaquin Citrus Baker Brothers Sunkist Packing House Dept. Of Agriculture, Clayton Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture Jack Parnell, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Joann Smith, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Dan Haley, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service Kaweah Citrus Association Oxnard Lemon Company Edward Madigan, Secretary of Agriculture Mission Citrus Company Ventura Pacific Company Saticoy Lemon Association Dole Citrus, a California Corporation AKA Blue Goose Growers, Inc., Dba Central Valley Citrus Strathmore Packing House Company Millwood Packing Inc. Blue Banner Company Inc. Ventura County Fruit Growers, Inc. Limonera Company, Kendall L. Nanock, Fresno, California, for Grand View (ca9, 1998-06-19) · Strongest negative: Davis v. Hennepin County (mnd, 2019-02-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Davis v. Hennepin County
D. Minnesota · 2019 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Juliano v. FADA, 736 F. Supp. 348, 351 (D.D.C. 1990) (“[T]his section, by its placement in the statute, appears to pertain to actions in which the government has already intervened . . . .”), aff’d, 959 F.2d 1101 (D.C.
cited Cited "see" 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4710, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6688 United States of America, Ex Rel., Sequoia Orange Company Lisle Babcock v. Baird-Neece Packing Corporation Sunkist Growers Inc. Sunland Packing House Company San Joaquin Citrus Baker Brothers Sunkist Packing House Dept. Of Agriculture, Clayton Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture Jack Parnell, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Joann Smith, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Dan Haley, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service Kaweah Citrus Association Oxnard Lemon Company Edward Madigan, Secretary of Agriculture Mission Citrus Company Ventura Pacific Company Saticoy Lemon Association Dole Citrus, a California Corporation AKA Blue Goose Growers, Inc., Dba Central Valley Citrus Strathmore Packing House Company Millwood Packing Inc. Blue Banner Company Inc. Ventura County Fruit Growers, Inc. Limonera Company, Kendall L. Nanock, Fresno, California, for Grand View
9th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kelly, 9 F.3d at 753 n. 10 (citing Juliano v. Federal Asset Disposition Ass'n, 736 F.Supp. 348 (D.D.C.1990), aff'd, 959 F.2d 1101 (D.C.Cir.1992)).
cited Cited "see" United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp.
9th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kelly, 9 F.3d at 753 n. 10 (citing Juliano v. Federal Asset Disposition Ass’n, 736 F.Supp. 348 (D.D.C.1990), aff'd, 959 F.2d 1101 (D.C.Cir.1992)).
cited Cited "see" Statesman Savings Holding Corp. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Juliano v. FADA, 736 F.Supp. 348, 352 (D.D.C.1990), aff'd, 959 F.2d 1101 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (Table).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pentagen Technologies International Ltd. v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
No such waiver has been promulgated by Congress and, to the contrary, the False Claims Act provides that any person who violates the Act will be “liable to the United States Government.” See 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a); see also Juliano v. Federal Asset Disposition Ass’n, 736 F.Supp. 348, 352, 353 (D.D.C.1990) (“The Court is aware of nothing in the Act that allows a private individual to sue selected federal agencies to recover money from the United States, and to reap a sizable profit in the process.”), aff'd., 959 F.2d 1101 , 1992 WL 76922 (D.C.Cir.1992). 6 As to the non-United States de…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States by the Department of Defense v. CACI International Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Co., 41 F.3d 1032, 1041 (6th Cir.1994) (“although a relator may sue in the government’s name, the relator is not vested with governmental power”); see, e.g., Juliano v. Federal Asset Disposition Ass’n (“FADA”), *78 736 F.Supp. 348, 351 (D.D.C.1990), aff'd without op., 959 F.2d 1101 (D.C.Cir.1992) (where government moved to dismiss some FCA defendants, court held that FCA does not require government to either take over action or to completely remove itself from action; government can proceed in “hybrid” fashion).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ron Nichols
v.
Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce
91-5140.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Mar 26, 1992.
959 F.2d 1101
Unpublished

959 F.2d 1101

295 U.S.App.D.C. 97

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Ron NICHOLS, Appellant,
v.
Robert A. MOSBACHER, Secretary of Commerce, et al.

No. 91-5140.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 26, 1992.

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, and RUTH BADER GINSBURG and BUCKLEY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1

Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel, the motion for summary affirmance, the court's order to show cause filed February 28, 1992, and the lack of any response thereto, it is

2

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

3

FURTHER ORDERED that the request for appointment of counsel be denied. Appointment of counsel in a civil action is exceptional and wholly unwarranted when appellant has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 29 (1987). It is

4

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum and order filed March 7, 1991. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980).

5

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.