green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
59.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…as is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an executive order begins with its text
at p. 934
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 39 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
CERVANTES-GUEVARA v. DIST. CT. (ANDERSON)
(3×)
as is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an executive order begins with its text.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunter v. United States
Generally, the question “whether a particular agreement is enforceable” has been understood as “one of substance, not procedure.” Bassidiji v. Goe, 413 F. 3d 928, 936 (CA9 2005); MediaNews Group, Inc. v. McCarthey, 494 F. 3d 1254 , 1260 20 HUNTER v. UNITED STATES THOMAS, J., dissenting C Even if the Court could recharacterize its rule as proce- dural, it was not the Court’s place to promulgate it.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunter v. United States Revisions: 6/19/26
Generally, the question “whether a particular agreement is enforceable” has been understood as “one of substance, not procedure.” Bassidiji v. Goe, 413 F. 3d 928, 936 (CA9 2005); MediaNews Group, Inc. v. McCarthey, 494 F. 3d 1254 , 1260 20 HUNTER v. UNITED STATES THOMAS, J., dissenting C Even if the Court could recharacterize its rule as proce- dural, it was not the Court’s place to promulgate it.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bartch v. Barch
Tex. Nov. 13, 2017) (quoting Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 937-38 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also Mann v. Gullickson, No. 15-cv-03630-MEJ, 2016 WL 6473215 , at *7 (N.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Erickson v. Pfeister
Instead, they filed the suit trying to get their money back.”30 In Bassidji v. Goe, the Ninth Circuit explains that when a court sits in diversity and addresses an illegality defense based on federal law, there is a preliminary question as to “whether [Alaska] or federal law should apply to the enforceability question.”31 Goe notes that courts have “reached divergent conclusions concerning which law should be applied to determine enforceability in these circumstances.”32 The Goe court 26 Docket 59 at 7. 27 Docket 52 at 9–11. 28 21 U.S.C. § 801 , et seq. 29 Docket 58 at 7–9. 30 I…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DotC United, Inc. v. Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.
See e.g., 23 Schoenberg v. Exportadora de Sal, S.A. de C.V., 930 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding the 24 Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws applied when jurisdiction based on Foreign Sovereign 25 Immunities Act (FSIA)); Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that because 26 “federal subject-matter jurisdiction in this case is based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship” “the 27 choice-of-law principles of the forum state” apply); Chuidian v. Philippine Nat.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye
However, as discussed || below, because the Court may award a monetary remedy (i.e., the return of the funds paid Mr. Frye) without ordering specific performance (i.e., that Mr. Frye keep the funds and hand over the Cubes so Plaintiff can manufacture cannabis), the Court may maintain || jurisdiction of this case without ordering a violation of federal law. -15- 1 require a court to order a legal violation.” Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 939-40 (9th 2 Cir. 2005) (declining to enforce a contract that would have furthered trade with an Iranian 3 || company in violation of an executive order).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hong
“As is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an Executive Order begins with its text.” Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aghaian v. Minassian
(2×)
The Ninth Circuit held the agreement was unenforceable because the “transaction promoted the transfer of wealth to Iran, including, it appears, the payment of fees to the Iranian government.” (Bassidji, supra, 413 F.3d at p. 935.) The court also declined to permit equitable remedies because doing so would itself “violate the precise terms of the Execute Order . . . [by] provid[ing] funds to the Iranian economy, paying for goods in Iran.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lopez
“As is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an Executive Order begins with its text.” Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Aumont (en banc)
“As is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an Executive Order begins with its text.” Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Barrick
“As is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an Executive Order begins with its text.” Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J. Lilly, LLC v. Clearspan Fabric Structures International, Inc.
Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72 (1982) (declining to enforce a contract that violated federal antitrust statutes); Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2005) (declining to enforce a contract that would have furthered trade with an Iranian company in violation of an executive order).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Left Coast Ventures Inc v. Bill's Nursery Inc
Wash. Aug. 28, 24 1 2019) (citing Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516, 519 (1959) (“the effect of illegality under a federal 2 statute is a matter of federal law”). 3 While the Ninth Circuit recognizes “[n]uanced approaches to the illegal contract 4 defense,” the relief ordered may “not mandate illegal conduct.” Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928 5 (9th Cir. 2005)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lincoln Transportation Service v. Cma Cgm America, LLC
Ed. 2d 833 (1982); Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2005).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
City & County of San Francisco v. Donald Trump
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
“As is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an Executive Order begins with its text,” which “must be construed consistently with the Order’s ‘object and policy.’” Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Nw.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Shanehsaz v. Johnson
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
These provisions are designed to prohibit a United States person from “provid[ing] funds to the .Iranian economy.” Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 939 (9th Cir. 2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Saravia v. Dynamex, Inc.
Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Amirhossein Sairafi
See United States v. Mousavi, 604 F.3d 1084, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2010); Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 933-35 (9th Cir.2005); see also Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 578 F.3d 1133, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ministry of Defense & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Defense Systems, Inc.
Id. at 935, 939 . 3.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Biltmore Associates v. Twin Cities
An assignee of a claim against an insurance company can have no stronger claim than the assignor who assigned the claim.14 Biltmore has to 14 Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 939 (9th Cir. 2005); Stephens v. Tex- tron, Inc., 619 P.2d 736, 739 (Ariz. 1980); Carpenter v. Superior Court, 422 P.2d 129, 131 (Ariz. 1966). 8578 BILTMORE ASSOCIATES v. TWIN CITY FIRE step into an insured’s shoes as assignee to have any claim against their insurers, since Biltmore is not an insured.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Singh v. Gantner
“As is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an Executive Order begins with its text.” Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Hassanzadeh, 271 F.3d 574, 580 (4th Cir.2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sacks v. Office of Foreign Assets Control
Because, on review of a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we assume all facts alleged in the Amended Complaint are true, see Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 930 (9th Cir.2005), these allegations are sufficient to satisfy the first two elements.
discussed
Cited "see"
Koskiniemi v. Jennings CA5
Lexis 152125 at **23-24; see Bassidji, supra, 413 F.3d at p. 938 [“California courts will not ‘fashion an equitable remedy’ where doing so involves ‘enforcing [by court order] the precise conduct made unlawful … in contravention of the legislative purpose’ ”].) D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bartch v. Barch
The latter would leave room for balancing equitable considerations, but not when the relief ordered “command[s] unlawful conduct.” Id. at 79 ; see Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 939 (9th Cir. 2005) (examining whether “a plausible remedy exists for [the plaintiff] that would not require a court to order a legal violation”). 30 Appellate Case: 23-1211 Document: 010111086218 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 31 In sum, we recognize that the judgment enforcement order would be invalid if it requires Mackie and Trellis to violate public policy. 24 But we do not think the order is sufficiently cl…
discussed
Cited "see"
Doe v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft
See Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying 22 California’s choice-of-law rules to determine whether Hong Kong or California law applied to breach of contract claim); Stud v. Trans Intern.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mills v. Hartford HealthCare Corp.
See Bas- sidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir. 2005) (‘‘[a]s is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an [e]xecutive [o]rder begins with its text’’); United States v. Abu Marzook, 412 F. Supp. 2d 913, 922 (N.D.
cited
Cited "see"
Next Step Advisors LLC v. True Harvest LLC LLC
See 13 Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928 , 938–39.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gopal v. Luther
California law, by contrast, permits some “commercial 22 activity relating to medicinal cannabis or adult-use cannabis.” Cal. Civil Code § 1550.5 ; see 23 Swamp Cap., LLC v. Shaw, No. 298436, 2022 WL 190337 , at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2022) 24 (unpublished) (upholding verdict in favor of enforcing contract for ownership interest in cannabis 25 dispensary without consideration of the CSA). 26 Neither federal nor state courts will enforce a contract if it “order[s] a legal violation.” 27 Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928 , 937–39 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Polk v. Gontmakher
See Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding 26 that “courts will not order a party to a contract to perform an act that is in direct violation 27 of a positive law directive, even if that party has agreed, for consideration, to perform that 1 act”).
cited
Cited "see"
CCSAC, Inc. v. Pacific Banking Corp
See Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928 , 10 935-36 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Francisco Jose Morales-Alegria v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
See United States v. Tarallo, 380 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that specific intent to defraud, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , requires knowledge of the falsity of the statements at issue), amended by 413 F.3d 928 (9th Cir.2005); Albillo-Figueroa v. INS, 221 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that 18 U.S.C. § 472 , which requires an intent to defraud but does not mention “knowledge” of the falsity of the document, requires the latter).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morales-Algria v. Gonzales
See United States v. Tarallo, 380 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that specific intent to defraud, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , requires knowledge of the fal- sity of the statements at issue), amended by 413 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2005); Albillo-Figueroa v. INS, 221 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that 18 U.S.C. § 472 , which requires an 6180 MORALES-ALEGRIA v. GONZALES intent to defraud but does not mention “knowledge” of the fal- sity of the document, requires the latter). [8] Given that the common-law and modern state statutory definitions of the mental state req…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Abu Marzook
See Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir.2005) (“As is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an Executive Order begins with its text.”); United States v. New Orleans Public Serv., Inc., 553 F.2d 459, 476 (5th Cir.1977) (canons of statutory construction apply equally to interpreting executive orders and further noting that “[wjhere the words are plain there is no room for construction” (internal quotation omitted)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Kornea v. Miller
See, e.g., Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting dispute and citing cases).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Coble v. Ventura County Health Care Agency
We avoid an interpretation that would render terms surplusage, but seek to give every word some significance, leaving no part useless or devoid of meaning.” (City of Morgan Hill v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 861, 877 ; see also Bassidji v. Goe (9th Cir. 2005) 413 F.3d 928 , 934 [“As is true of interpretation of statutes, the interpretation of an Executive Order begins with its text”].) A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that, “[i]f there is no ambiguity in the language of the statute, ‘then the Legislature is presumed to have meant …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sirous Asgari
Reg. at 44,531 (emphasis added); see also Bassidji v. Goe , 413 F.3d 928 , 934 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing the sanctions' broad scope).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mark Ellison
Holding Corp., 320 F.3d 920, 934 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Tarallo, 380 F.3d 1174, 1182 (9th Cir. 2004), amended, 413 F.3d 928 , 928 (9th Cir. 2005). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Morris-Griffin Corp. v. C & L SERVICE CORP.
See also Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 935-939 (9th Cir.2005) (guarantee to reimburse party for licensing fees is unenforceable because licensing fees would be used to obtain and sell Iranian shrimp eggs in violation of executive order).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Aldo TARALLO, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Aldo TARALLO, Defendant-Appellant
02-50252.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 29, 2005.
Barry Tarlow and Tarik S. Adlai, Tarlow & Berk, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellant., Steven J. Olson, Assistant United States Attorney, Major Frauds Section, Los An-geles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Nelson, Gibson, Graber.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND AMENDED OPINION
The opinion filed August 20, 2004, is amended as follows:
On slip opinion page 11814, and published at 380 F.3d 1174, 1196 (9th Cir.2004), delete footnote 9 and add the following sentence to the conclusion at the end of the opinion: “The remainder of the sentence is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).”
With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Graber has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges D.W. Nelson and Gibson have so recommended.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it.
The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc may be filed.