green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
49.1 score
“here is privity between officers of the same government so that a judgment in a suit between a party and a representative of is res judicata in relitigation of the same issue between that party and other officer of the government.”
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Provo River Coalition v. Pena
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
in cases where the public interest is involved, the district court must also examine whether the public interest favors the plaintiffs.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank
here is privity between officers of the same government so that a judgment in a suit between a party and a representative of is res judicata in relitigation of the same issue between that party and other officer of the government.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hugo Jorge Sanchez Cruz v. Dr. Karen Harris, Oregon State Prison Chief Medical Provider, Dr. Warren Roberts, F.A.A.N.S. Oregon Department of Corrections Medical Director, and Kimberly Hendricks, SCI Superintendent
In Plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts, he states: “Defendants are correct, in the statement that they submit[t]ed arguing that plaintiff[ ] fail[ed] to file on time and that a second claim under the same facts was filed.” ECF 22 at 19 ¶ 1 (emphases added). party and another officer of the government.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 402-03 (1940)); see also Tahoe-Sierra, 322 F.3d at 1081 (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if ‘there is substantial ide…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Niall Ledwidge, et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, et al.
Agency Standing 11 “The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of issues that were resolved in a 12 prior proceeding, even if the later suit involves a different cause of action.” Fund for Animals, 13 Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Center for Biological Diversity v. Little
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vadim Miesegaes v. Malinda Durnen
See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that federal claim preclusion “applies when there is (1) an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that there is “privity between officers of the same government”); C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cottonwood Envir. Law Ctr. v. Greg Gianforte
“State actors may not be enjoined under NEPA simply because a state project involves major federal action.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management
Id. at 13. 28 In Fund for Animal, plaintiffs challenged the bison 1 management practices of the federal government in Yellowstone. 2 Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 3 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Williams v. Price
See [Bernhard v. Bank of America, 122 P.2d 8 892, 894 (Cal. 1942)]; Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (affirming the application of res judicata in a case where “[d]ifferent 9 individuals [we]re named defendants in the two suits” because “all [we]re employees of the FCC who participated in the” challenged conduct that led to the 10 alleged injury); Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Although the two actions name different federal defendants, ‘[t]here is 11 privity between officers of the same government so that a…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Bernhardt
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Friends of the Earth, 518 F.2d at 329 ). © See Fund for Animals, 962 F.2d at 1397 (citing Homeowners Emergency Life Prot.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Bernhardt
The photographs attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s motion are asserted to be of sites within the Gallatin National Forest outside of Yellowstone National Park.’ Hazing of bison within Yellowstone National Park is not claimed to be depicted in any of the exhibit photographs.” ” Laub, 342 F.3d at 1092 (quoting Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992)). * Laub, 342 F.3d at 1083 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald Cohn, Inc. v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
Where a party demonstrates that a public interest is 6 involved, a “district court must also examine whether the public interest favors the 7 plaintiff.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 Alternatively, a party seeking injunctive relief under Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald Cohn, Inc. v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
Where a party demonstrates that a public 10 interest is involved, a “district court must also examine whether the public interest favors 11 the plaintiff.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992). 12 Alternatively, a party seeking injunctive relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 must show 13 either (1) a combination of likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of 14 irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions going to the merits are raised and the balance 15 of hardships tips sharply in favor of the moving party.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems Incorporated
“The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the 8 relitigation of issues that were resolved in a prior proceeding, even if the later suit involves a 9 different cause of action.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 “To foreclose relitigation of an issue under collateral estoppel: (1) the issue at stake must be 11 identical to the one alleged in the prior litigation; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated in 12 the prior litigation; and (3) the determination of the issue in the prior litigation must have been a 13 critical and necessary part of …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cottonwood Environmental Law v. David Bernhardt
But “nonfederal defendants may be enjoined if federal and state projects are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single federal action for NEPA purposes.” Laub, 342 F.3d at 1092 (alteration omitted) (quoting Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Church v. Naftzger
Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l 22 Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation 23 omitted). “[P]rivity is a flexible concept dependent on the particular relationship between the 24 parties in each individual set of cases.” Tahoe-Sierra, 322 F.32 at 1081-82 (citation omitted). 25 Though courts have found privity to exist between officers of the same government, see, 26 e.g., Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992), they have also found 27 privity to be absent between an officer sued in her official capacity and that s…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Ryan S. O'Hara
See 9 McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2004) (to apply issue preclusion, the issue at stake must be identical to the one alleged in the prior litigation); Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992) (issue preclusion applies only when the issues presented in each matter are identical—the doctrine is inapplicable if the issues are merely similar) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corporation d.b.a. Harborside Health Center v. Commissioner
Delta Water Agency, 306 F.3d at 952 n.11 (quoting Fund for Animals, 962 F.2d at 1398). - 23 - (2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corporation d.b.a. Harborside Health Center v. Commissioner
Delta Water Agency, 306 F.3d at 952 n.11 (quoting Fund for Animals, 962 F.2d at 1398). - 23 - (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilderness Watch v. Vilsack
More specifically, “[n]onfederal actors may ... be enjoined under NEPA if their proposed action cannot proceed without the prior approval of a federal agency.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Conservation Council for Hawaii v. National Marine Fisheries Service
See, e.g., Mount Graham Red Squirrel v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1568 , 1581-82 (9th Cir.1993) (extinction of species whose observation in the wild provided plaintiffs scientific, Recreational and aesthetic enjoyment conferred requisite injury for standing purposes); Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir.1992) (diminished opportunity for Fund .members to view the northern bison herd in Yellowstone established standing to challenge the National Park Service’s 1990 bison management plan); Alaska Fish & Wildlife Fed’n and Outdoor Council, Inc. v. Dunkle, 829 F.2d 933, 937 (9th C…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Trade Commission v. Gugliuzza
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trebro Manufacturing, Inc. v. Firefly Equipment, LLC
“In reviewing the denial of a preliminary injunction, [the Ninth Circuit] determined] whether the district court abused, its discretion in applying the *1166 law or whether it clearly erred in formulating its findings of fact.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Chudacoff v. University Medical Center
The most important factor in determining whether there is an identity of claims is whether the two actions “arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting C.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Citizens for Smart Growth v. Secretary of the Department of Transportation
Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Slater, 243 F.3d 270 , 277 (6th Cir.2001) (“If we conclude that the highway corridor constitutes a ‘major federal action,’ then we have the authority to instruct the district court to enjoin the state from further construction on the highway.”); Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Nonfederal defendants may be enjoined if federal and state projects are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single federal action for NEPA purposes.” (quotation marks omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Citizens for Smart Growth v. Secretary, Department ot Transportation
Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Slater, 243 F.3d 270 , 277 (6th Cir. 2001) (“If we conclude that the highway corridor constitutes a ‘major federal action,’ then we have the authority to instruct the district court to enjoin the state from further construction on the highway.”); Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Nonfederal defendants may be enjoined if federal and state projects are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single federal action for NEPA purposes.” (quotation marks omitted)). 6 While we agree with the Secretary of FDOT that the APA does n…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Defense of Animals v. United States Department of the Interior
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 , 92 S.Ct. 1361 , 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burnett v. Dugan
Where a party demonstrates that a public interest is involved, a “district court must also examine whether the public interest favors the plaintiff.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hurley v. Horizon Air Industries, Inc.
Analysis To obtain a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Proce *1232 dure 65(b), a party must show “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” A party is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief when it demonstrates either “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions on the merits and the balance of hardships tips sharply i…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Elicker
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In fact, even though the Ninth Circuit in Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1397-98 (9th Cir. 1992), concluded a court could enjoin state actors pursuant to NEPA if a state project required federal approval to proceed, this Court declined to exercise that authority.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Judge Berzon's other case citations, Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir. 1992), Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 , 110 S.Ct. 2228 , 110 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 240 , 97 S.Ct. 1782 , 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), and Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 , 756-57 and n. 22, 104 S.Ct. 3315 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), are also illfitting, as any intrepid scholar will discover.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. State of California
Moreover, Adams herself posited in the first complaint that the reopening of the background investi- gation was “arguably illegal based upon the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” Therefore, the principle that “[c]laim preclu- sion bars the assertion of any theory of recovery that could have been asserted in the first action,” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992), applies with particular force here. [9] In addition, any judgment in the present action neces- sarily could destroy or impair rights and interests established by the judgment in the first action.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Syverson v. International Business Machines Corp.
In Parklane Hosiery, the Supreme Court sanctioned the use of offensive nonmutual issue preclusion and granted to trial courts "broad discretion to determine when it should be applied." 439 U.S. at 331 , 99 S.Ct. 645 . 23 We have since specified that the application of offensive nonmutual issue preclusion is appropriate only if (1) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue in the prior action, see Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir.1992); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Keating, 186 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1999); Appling v. State Farm Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Syverson v. International Business MacHines Corp.
We have since specified that the application of offensive nonmutual issue preclusion is appropriate only if (1) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue in the prior action, see Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir.1992); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Keating, 186 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1999); Appling v. State Farm Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 , 92 S.Ct. 1361 , 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972)). "[T]he desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing." Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 562-63 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman
(2×)
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 (1972)). 18752 ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE v. VENEMAN “[T]he desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing.” Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 562-63 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garrett v. City of Escondido
Where a party demonstrates that a public interest is involved, a “district court must also examine whether the public interest favors the plaintiff.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda
Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors, 366 F.3d 754 , 760, 766 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992)). “ ‘The grant of a preliminary injunction is the exercise of a very far reaching power never to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it.’ ” Sierra Club v. Hickel, 433 F.2d 24, 33 (9th Cir.1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Syverson v. International Business Machines Corp.
In Parklane Hosiery, the Supreme Court sanctioned the use of offensive nonmutual issue preclusion and granted to trial courts "broad discretion to determine when it should be applied." 439 U.S. at 331 , 99 S.Ct. 645 . 17 We have since specified that the application of offensive nonmutual issue preclusion is appropriate only if (1) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue in the prior action, see Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir.1992); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Keating, 186 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1999); Appling v. State Farm Mut.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Syverson v. International Business MacHines Corp.
We have since specified that the application of offensive nonmutual issue preclusion is appropriate only if (1) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue in the prior action, see Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir.1992); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Keating, 186 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1999); Appling v. State *1154 Farm Mut.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SMC Promotions, Inc. v. SMC Promotions
“The district court must also consider whether the public interest favors issuance of the injunction.” Id. (citing Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beardslee v. Woodford
“In cases where the public inter- est is involved, the district court must also examine whether 924 BEARDSLEE v. WOODFORD the public interest favors the plaintiff.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Carib- bean Marine Servs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beardslee v. Woodford
"In cases where the public interest is involved, the district court must also examine whether the public interest favors the plaintiff." Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992); see also Caribbean Marine Servs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beardslee v. Woodford
“In cases where the public interest is involved, the district court must also examine whether the public interest favors the plaintiff.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992); see also Caribbean Marine Servs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harper Ex Rel. Harper v. Poway Unified School District
“In cases where the public interest is involved, the district court must also examine whether the public interest favors the plaintiff.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Caribbean Marine Services Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir.1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Central Valley Water Agency v. United States
In order for the third factor to be satisfied, the issues litigated must not be “merely similar,” they must be “identical.” Central Delta, 306 F.3d at 953 (citing Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Board of Supervisors
“In cases where the public interest is involved, the district court must also examine whether the public interest favors the plaintiff.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Caribbean Marine Servs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gary Harris v. Board Of Supervisors, Los Angeles County
Id. (citation omitted). 19 "In cases where the public interest is involved, the district court must also examine whether the public interest favors the plaintiff." Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Caribbean Marine Servs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stephenson
“This analysis creates a continuum: the less certain the district court is of the likelihood of success on the merits, the more plaintiffs must convince the court that the public interest and balance of hardships in them favor.” Southwest Voter Registration Project, 344 F.3d at 918 , citing, Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Western State University of Southern California v. American Bar Ass'n
Rather, “[t]his analysis creates a continuum: the less certain the district court is of the likelihood of success on the merits, the more plaintiffs must convince the district court that the public interest and balance of hardships tip in their favor.” Id. (citing Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir.1992)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Robert Nello Brackeen
v.
Robert Nello Brackeen
91-50036.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 28, 1992.
962 F.2d 1391
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert Nello BRACKEEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-50036.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
April 28, 1992.
Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, BROWNING, HUG, TANG, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, FARRIS, PREGERSON, ALARCON, POOLE, D.W. NELSON, CANBY, NORRIS, REINHARDT, BEEZER, HALL, WIGGINS, BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, NOONAN, THOMPSON, O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, TROTT, FERNANDEZ, RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.