green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
17.1 score
“where the interpretation of a 13 contract involves review of extrinsic evidence, this court reviews findings of fact for clear 14 error while reviewing de novo the principles of law applied to those facts.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Medina v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3
where the interpretation of a 13 contract involves review of extrinsic evidence, this court reviews findings of fact for clear 14 error while reviewing de novo the principles of law applied to those facts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
New Seabury Co. v. New Seabury Properties, LLC (In Re New Seabury Co.)
Bank of Boston, 75 F.3d 49, 58 (1st Cir.1996) (“At summary judgment, moreover, courts normally assume that the trier of fact would credit the expert testimony proffered by the nonmovant....”); Tamen v. Alhambra World Investment, Inc. (In re Tamen), 22 F.3d 199, 206 (9th Cir. 1994). 49 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sankey v. ABCO Leasing, Inc. (In Re Sankey)
Tamen v. Alhambra World Investment, Inc. (In re Tamen), 22 F.3d 199, 203 (9th Cir.1994). 11 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. 1.377 Acres of Land
In re Tamen, 22 F.3d 199, 203 (9th Cir.1994); Taylor-Edwards Warehouse & Transfer Co. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 715 F.2d 1330 , 1333 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1983).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. 1.377 Acres Of Land, More Or Less, Situated In The City Of San Diego, County Of San Diego, State Of California
(3×)
Tamen, 22 F.3d at 203. 11 The parties to this case have disputed the appropriate standard of review to which the decision of the district court should be subject.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman v. Standard Life Insurance
Inc., 872 F.2d 312, 314 (9th Cir.1989) (“[O]ne of two inconsistent pleas cannot be used as evidence in the trial of the other because a contrary rule would place a litigant at his peril in exercising the liberal pleading ... provisions of the Federal Rules.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); In re Tamen, 22 F.3d 199, 204 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bezanson v. Thomas
(In re Tamen), 22 F.3d 199, 206 (9th Cir. 1994); Westminster Assocs., Ltd. v .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sicor Ltd. v. Cetus Corp.
State Law Claims A Standard of Review “Under California law, extrinsic evidence is admissible if relevant to prove a meaning to which the contractual language is reasonably susceptible.” Tamen v. Alhambra World Inv., Inc. (In re Tamen), 22 F.3d 199, 203 (9th Cir.1994) (interpreting California law). 12 Where there is a dispute over a material fact deemed necessary to a contract’s interpretation, based on evidentiary support for competing interpretations, summary judgment is inappropriate.
cited
Cited "see"
North County Communications Corp. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P.
See id. (citing Tamen v. Alhambra World Inv., Inc. (In re Tamen), 22 F.3d 199, 203 (9th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. John Ibarra
See Tamen v. Alhambra World Inv., Inc., 22 F.3d 199, 205 (9th Cir.1994) (holding an issue waived on appeal when it was not “raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it,” when the party did not “press! ] or even explain!]” the issue, and when the trial court had no opportunity to “make any express ... conclusions of law on the matter”). !5] Fifth, the jury instruction was correct as to the charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (a)(1)(A).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Otter
See Tamen v. Alhambra World Inv., Inc. (In re Tamen), 22 F.3d 199, 203 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Mateo v. M/S Kiso
See Tamen v. Alhambra World Investment, Inc. (In re Tamen), 22 F.3d 199, 203 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Mateo v. Kiso
See Tamen v. Alhambra World Investment, Inc. (In re Tamen), 22 F.3d 199, 203 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Crevier v. Sullinger
See, e.g., Tamen v. Alhambra World Inv., Inc., 22 F.3d 199, 205 (9th Cir.1994). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Laszlo Szucs v. L & D Scaffolding, Inc., a California Corporation J.H. Fitzmaurice, Inc. J.H. Fitzmaurice, inc./r.m. Fitzmaurice Joint Venture
See also, In re Tamen, 22 F.3d 199 , 205 (9th Cir.1994) (unclean hands is sufficiently raised below if the district court rules on the issue).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Woratzeck v. Lewis
Smith v. *1097 McCormick, 914 F.2d 1153, 1168-69 (9th Cir.1990); See also Jeffers v. Lewis, 5 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir.1992) (Same), reh’g en banc granted, 22 F.3d 199 (9th Cir.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jimmie Wayne JEFFERS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Samuel LEWIS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison, Respondents-Appellees
v.
Samuel LEWIS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison, Respondents-Appellees
86-1840.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 14, 1994.
ORDER
WALLACE, Chief Judge.Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this ease be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.