George A. MacKenzie v. Div. of Vocational Rehab. of the State of Washington Sharon Stewart Johnson, 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
George A. MacKenzie v. Div. of Vocational Rehab. of the State of Washington Sharon Stewart Johnson, 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
82 citation events (49 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: (PS) Sanai v. Cobrae (caed, 2022-12-08)
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 "see" (PS) Sanai v. Cobrae
E.D. Cal. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally McNatt v. Allied- 24 Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Lew, 797 F.2d at 750 (“A change in domicile 25 3 Previously, plaintiff sought to take Ms. Cothern’s deposition as relevant to oppose the motion 26 for relief from default that plaintiff anticipated defendant would file.
cited Cited "see, e.g." BRT Management LLC v. Malden Storage LLC
D. Mass. · 2023 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340, at *4 (9th Cir. 1992); O’Toole v. Arlington Tr.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Blazek v. Heavens Urgent Care LLC
D. Ariz. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 64; see also Mendez v. Radec Corp., 232 F.R.D. 78, 82-83 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (denying 27 summary judgment because of questions of fact regarding meal break interruptions being de minimis). 28 1 employee’s lunch break, but an ‘employee cannot be docked for lunch breaks during 2 which he is required to continue with any duties related to his work.’” Doc. 51 at 5 3 (quoting Busk v. Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc., 713 F.3d 525, 531 (9th Cir. 2013), rev’d on 4 other grounds, 574 U.S. 27 (2014) (citation omitted)); see also Martin v. Applied Data 5 Sys., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992) (c…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Scott v. Phoenix Municipal Court
D. Ariz. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986); see also 23 McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Britton v. Arizona, State of
D. Ariz. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986); see also McNatt v. Allied- 11 Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Brown
Wash. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Kwan Fai Mak v. Blodgett, 754 F.Supp. 1490, 1493-94 (W.D.Wash.1991) ("The Constitution requires the most careful scrutiny of every case in which a person has been sentenced to death."), aff'd, 972 F.2d 1340 (9th cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 951 , 113 S.Ct. 1363 , 122 L.Ed.2d 742 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George A. MacKenzie
v.
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of the State of Washington Sharon Stewart Johnson
91-35364.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 19, 1993.
972 F.2d 1340
Unpublished

972 F.2d 1340

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
George A. MACKENZIE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, et al.; Sharon Stewart Johnson, et
al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 90-35648, 91-35364, 91-35580.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 1992.
Decided Aug. 3, 1992.
As Amended Feb. 19, 1993.

Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, FARRIS and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[*]

2

The district court, like every other court or administrator reviewing Mackenzie's allegations, has afforded him an extensive opportunity to present his evidence and arguments. It carefully acknowledged each point in his response to its order to show cause. We agree that summary judgment is appropriate. Appellees' motion to supplement the record is denied as moot. The order granting summary judgment to defendants is AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3