Howe v. Varity Corp., 41 F.3d 1263 (8th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Howe v. Varity Corp., 41 F.3d 1263 (8th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“section 1582 ... deals with customs searches at the border, while section 482 193 deals with searches of items 'wherever found,' in which agents suspect there is contraband or dutiable goods that '' already imported illegally”
45 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Soto-Teran (nyed, 1996-09-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Soto-Teran (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
E.D.N.Y · 1996 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
section 1582 ... deals with customs searches at the border, while section 482 193 deals with searches of items 'wherever found,' in which agents suspect there is contraband or dutiable goods that '' already imported illegally
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Martin
D.D.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977)) (nonetheless noting that the customs officers in fact had legitimate suspicions about the defendant and that, regardless, any error would have been harmless). 3 other items which have already ‘arrived’ but which are suspected of having been imported contrary to law.” Def.’s Reply at 3, ECF No. 43 (quoting United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1266 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Abbouchi
9th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Customs inspectors had statutory authority to conduct these border searches under 31 U.S.C. § 5317 , a statute authorizing inspections to enforce a statute prohibiting transport of undeclared high-value monetary instruments across the border, see United States v. Gomez-Osorio, 957 F.2d 636, 643 (9th Cir.1992), as well as under 19 U.S.C. § 1582 , the general source of Customs’s border search authority, cf. United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1266 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (holding that § 1582 border search authority for "persons and baggage” extends to international mail).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Abbouchi
9th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
An “identification document” includes documents “made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government . . . which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of iden- tification of individuals.” 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (d)(3). (9th Cir. 1992), as well as under 19 U.S.C. § 1582 , the general source of Customs’s border search authority, cf. United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1266 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (holding that § 1582 border search authority for “persons and baggage” …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Abbouchi
9th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Customs inspectors had statutory authority to conduct these border searches under 31 U.S.C. § 5317 , a statute authorizing inspections to enforce a statute prohibiting transport of undeclared high-value monetary instruments across the border, see United States v. Gomez-Osorio, 957 F.2d 636, 643 (9th Cir. 1992), as well as under 19 U.S.C. § 1582 , the general source of Customs’s border search authority, cf. United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1266 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (holding that § 1582 border search authority for “persons and baggage” extends to international mail).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Andrew Putra Sahanaja
9th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (footnotes omitted, alterations in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Shahanja
9th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (footnotes omitted, alterations in original). [2] In United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 612-13 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that “[t]he ‘rea- sonable cause to suspect’ test adopted by [§482] is . . . a prac- tical test which imposes a less stringent requirement than that of ‘probable cause’ imposed by the Fourth Amendment as a requirement for the issuance of warrants.” The Court held that 16074 UNITED STATES v. SAHANAJA the Customs official who performed the search of incoming internation…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ethelbert Chibuike ANI, Defendant-Appellee (2×)
9th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
I International mail searches are governed by 19 U.S.C. § 1582 . 1 United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1266 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (hereinafter “Taghizadeh II”); United States v. Taghizadeh, 87 F.3d 287, 288-89 (9th Cir.1996) (hereinafter “Taghizadeh III”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kourosh Akhavan
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
United States v. Taghizadeh 1 , 41 F.3d 1263, 1266 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Patricio Dela Cruz Flores, AKA \Patrick
unknown court · 1995 · confidence medium
Based on a recent en banc decision of this court, we conclude that Flores' reliance on section 482 is misplaced. 5 In United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1266 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc), we held that under 19 U.S.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Paul Thavaj
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Any such argument is meritless given this court's recent decision in United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1264-66 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc). 1 Because Thavaj's allegations of ineffective assistance can be rejected on this record as a matter of law, no evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve this claim.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Seljan (2×)
9th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Seljan
9th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Tagh- izadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Flores-Montano
9th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See 19 C.F.R. § 145.2.4 The en banc panel specifically overruled DeVries v. Acree, 565 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1977), in favor of the opinions of several circuits that had uniformly held that “customs officials have unlimited discretion to search incom- ing international packages.” 41 F.3d at 1266 (citing United States v. Glasser, 750 F.2d 1197, 1200-05 (3d Cir. 1984); United States v. Pringle, 576 F.2d 1114, 1116 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Emery, 541 F.2d 887, 889 (1st Cir. 1976); United States v. Odland, 502 F.2d 148, 150 (7th Cir. 1974)).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Manuel Flores-Montano
9th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See 19 C.F.R. § 145.2 . 4 The en banc panel specifically overruled DeVries v. Acree, 565 F.2d 577 (9th Cir.1977), in favor of the opinions of several circuits that had uniformly held that “customs officials have unlimited discretion to search incoming international packages.” 41 F.3d at 1266 (citing United States v. Glasser, 750 F.2d 1197, 1200-05 (3d Cir.1984); United States v. Pringle, 576 F.2d 1114, 1116 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Emery, 541 F.2d 887, 889 (1st Cir.1976); United States v. Odland, 502 F.2d 148, 150 (7th Cir.1974)).
discussed Cited "see" Emmenegger v. Bull Moose Tube Co.
E.D. Mo. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
Schwartz v. Gregori, 45 F.3d 1017, 1022-23 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 819 , 116 S.Ct. 77 , 133 L.Ed.2d 36 (1995); see Howe v. Varity Corp., 36 F.3d 746, 756 (8th Cir.) (stating that district court's award of payments that plaintiffs "would have received if they had remained members of [their employer's welfare benefits plan]" constituted "restitution"), clarified by 41 F.3d 1263 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam), affirmed, 516 U.S. 489 , 116 S.Ct. 1065 , 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Jonathon Marc Sutter
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although by its terms, § 1581 is not limited to border searches, courts have limited § 1581's "broad grant of authority to conduct searches without cause to border searches, because otherwise the statute’s unlimited search authority would conflict with the requirements of the [F]ourth [A]mendment.” United States v. Sandoval Vargas, 854 F.2d 1132 , 1135 n. 4 (9th Cir.1988), criticized on other grounds by United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263 , 1266 n. 3 (9th Cir.1994); see also DeVries v. Acree, 565 F.2d 577, 580 (9th Cir.1977) (Kilkenny, J., dissenting) (cited approvingly in Taghizad…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Ayala
C.A.A.F. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Taghizadeh, 41 F.3d 1263, 1265-66 (9th Cir. 1994)(en banc); United States v. Smith, 29 F.3d 270, 274 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. Pringle, 576 F.2d 1114, 1116 (5th Cir.1978). 10.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Howe Robert Wells Ralph W. Thompson Patrick Mousel, on Behalf of Themselves and as Representatives of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated John Altomare Charles Barron Alexander Charron Charlotte Chiles Anita Crowe Ray Darr Doris Guidicessi Barnett Lucas Robert Skromme and Estate of Walter Smith, Individually, Appellees/cross-Appellants
v.
Varity Corporation and Massey Ferguson, Inc., Appellants/cross-Appellees
93-2056.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 8, 1994.
41 F.3d 1263
Published

41 F.3d 1263

Charles HOWE; Robert Wells; Ralph W. Thompson; Patrick
Mousel, on Behalf of Themselves and as Representatives of a
Class of Persons Similarly Situated; John Altomare;
Charles Barron; Alexander Charron; Charlotte Chiles;
Anita Crowe; Ray Darr; Doris Guidicessi; Barnett Lucas;
Robert Skromme; and Estate of Walter Smith, individually,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
VARITY CORPORATION and Massey Ferguson, Inc.,
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 93-2056, 93-2111.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 1994.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Donald O'Brien, U.S.D.C., Judge.

Floyd Abrams, New York City, argued (Thomas J. Kavaler and Howard G. Sloane, New York City, William J. Koehn and Deborah M. Tharnish, Des Moines, IA, Gerald P. Greiman and H. Todd Iveson, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for appellant.

H. Richard Smith, Des Moines, IA, argued (Robert J. Schmit and William A. Gengler, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief), for appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HANSEN, Circuit Judge, and STOHR,[*] District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

[*~1263]1

We have before us the motion of appellants for a clarification of our opinion filed September 29, 1994, 36 F.3d 746.

2

The motion is granted, and we offer the following additional explanation and guidance for the benefit of the District Court on remand.

[*~1264]3

It was not our intention to give any reinstated persons rights that do not appertain generally to members of the MF plan as it now exists. Any entitlement that the reinstated persons have with respect to past benefits (and we include in this phrase benefits accrued since the trial) will be taken into account when restitution is made on remand and the District Court adjusts the amount of restitution as appropriate in light of intervening events. As for the future, the right to modify the plan exists to the full extent indicated by our opinion, subject of course to any applicable requirements of law and to any claim that any future modification is retaliatory with respect to, or discriminatory against, the plaintiffs in this case.

4

On remand, the District Court should have these remarks in mind and is free to fashion, after hearing the views of the parties and any additional evidence that it may find relevant, a more detailed decree, not inconsistent with our previously filed opinion.

5

In addition, appellees have requested by letter certain technical amendments to the caption. Appellants do not object. The request for amendments to the caption is granted, and the caption on this opinion has been amended accordingly.

[*~1265]6

It is so ordered.

*

The Hon. Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation