green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
34.6 score
“a question of causation is preeminently a question of fact, to be decided after trial”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cryer v. Idaho Dep't of Labor
a question of causation is preeminently a question of fact, to be decided after trial
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marian Anthony, Jasmine Johanesen v. County of San Diego, et al.
Thus, this argument is 3 procedurally improper. 4 A motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to amend judgment 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).2 See In re Arrowhead Estates Development 6 Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Platform Science, Inc. v. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC
The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” Id. 28 1 Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cantor v. Martinez
Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). 20 “[A] post-judgment motion will be considered a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves 21 ‘reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.’” 22 Osterneck, 489 U.S. at 174 (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec., 23 455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mazgaj v. Charles
See Osterneck v. 12 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 13 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dawes v. The People of the State of California
Although it is difficult to discern what further 9 relief Dawes seeks in his motion because much of what he writes is delusional, the Court 10 will construe the motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 22, 2024 11 order. 12 “A motion for reconsideration may be brought under either Fed.R.Civ.P (“FRCP”) 13 59(e) or 60(b).” In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 14 1994) (citing School Dist.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mayen v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
See Osterneck v. 23 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 24 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Simon v. Superior Court of California
See Osterneck v. 14 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 15 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Seeley v. Portland Public Schools - School Board
Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994) (court reviewing denial of motion for reconsideration under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) when party appealing denial of motion for reconsideration did not specify which rule supported the motion).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arellano v. Jones
See Osterneck v. 1 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 2 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Valles v. Attorney General of the United States
See Osterneck v. 14 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 15 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Murillo v. Ramos
See Osterneck 13 v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development 14 Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Acosta v. State of Oregon
Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that where post-judgment motion for reconsideration did not specify which Rule, 59(e) or 60(b), supported the motion, court considered a motion under both standards). a.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stevenson v. Beard
Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). 22 Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is 23 shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 24 evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; 25 (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; 26 and (6) any other reason justifying relief.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arellano v. Santos
See Osterneck v. 16 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 17 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Misuraca v. Washington County Detention Center/Jail
Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that where post-judgment motion for reconsideration did not specify which Rule, 59(e) or 60(b), supported the motion, court considered motion under both standards).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. San Diego, County of
See 22 Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Dev. 23 Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Covello et.al.
See Osterneck v. 1 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 2 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arellano v. Santos
See Osterneck v. 17 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 18 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Navarro
See Osterneck v. 24 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 25 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. Richard J. Donovan
See Osterneck v. 19 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 20 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nogales v. Becerra
See Osterneck v. 28 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 1 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
O'Brien v. Garcia
See Osterneck v. 18 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 19 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shmuel Erde v. John Brink
Co.), 42 F.3d 1306, 1310-11 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ASSOCIATED ESTATES LLC v. BANKATLANTIC
Co. v. United States Tr., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that amendments to Rule 4 (a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that became effective after Arrowhead lodged its appeal did not preclude application of the amended rule to the case (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 274 , 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“We have regularly applied intervening statutes conferring or ousting jurisdiction, whether , or not jurisdiction lay when the underlying conduct occurred or when the suit was filed.”)) We conclude that AE is entitled to the more liberal construction of Rule 3 that the 2016 amend…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Axium International, Inc.
Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th Cir. 1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Santos v. People of the Territory of Guam
Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994), citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. 244 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Thomas Moldo v. Ash
Co.), 42 F.3d 1306, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1994) (concluding that the BAP erred in failing to reach the merits of an appeal of the bankruptcy court’s judgment and remand- ing for further proceedings).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rettig v. Peters (In Re Peters)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The policies underlying the federal rules would not be advanced by a contrary result.” In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Marian Anthony, Jasmine Johanesen v. County of San Diego, et al.
See In re Arrowhead Estates 8 Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Arellano v. Doe 1
See In re 20 Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994); Osterneck v. 21 Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Omer L. Rains, Omer L. Rains v. Kenny W. Flinn, in Re D.W. And O.L. Rains, Omer L. Rains v. Kenny W. Flinn, and Office of the United States Trustee, Trustee
See Arrowhead Estates Development Co. v. United States Trustee ( In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co. ), 42 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th Cir.1994), as amended; Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Rains v. Flinn (In Re Rains)
See Arrow-head Estates Development Co. v. United States Trustee (In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co.), 42 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th Cir.1994), as amended; Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
See Tahoe III Appeal, 34 F.3d 753 , amended by 42 F.3d 1306 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1036 , 115 S.Ct. 1401 , 131 L.Ed.2d 288 (1995); TSPC v. TRPA, 992 F.Supp. 1218 (D.Nev.1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
McCloughan v. City of Springfield
In short, “[c]ausation is generally a jury question unless, in a particular case, the question is ‘so free from doubt as to justify taking it from the jury.’ ” Ricketts v. City of Columbia, Missouri, 36 F.3d 775, 779 (8th Cir.1994), quoting Trudeau v. Wyrick, 713 F.2d 1360, 1366-67 (8th Cir.1983); see Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 34 F.3d 753, 756 (9th Cir.1994), amended by 42 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir.1994)(holding that “a question of causation is preeminently a question of fact, to be decided after trial.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., a California Non-Profit Corporation and Membership Organization Joseph R. Abrahamson and Charlene Z. Abrahamson, as Co-Trustees of the Joseph R. Abrahamson and Charlene Z. Abrahamson Family Trust Jane S. Akdoruk Jesse Aldatz, Jr. Hugh C. Alexander Raymond D. Allen, as Trustee of the Allen 1989 Revocable Trust Gordon Alley Bruno Alpi Ernest Arnold William L. Asay Edith B. Asay Nicholas D
See Tahoe III Appeal, 34 F.3d 753 , amended by 42 F.3d 1306 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1036 , 115 S.Ct. 1401 , 131 L.Ed.2d 288 (1995); TSPC v. TRPA, 992 F.Supp. 1218 (D.Nev.1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Charles George Milden, and Susan Patricia Milden, Debtors. (Two Cases) Charles G. Milden and Susan P. Milden, State of the Art, Inc., David S. Samuels, George Riviere, and David H. Hanna, Creditor-Appellees v. James J. Joseph, Chapter 7 Trustee, Robertson Stephens & Company, and Frank A. Barcott Security and Investigation, Real-Parties-In-Interest-Appellees. Charles G. Milden and Susan P. Milden, State of the Art, Inc., David S. Samuels, George Riviere, and David H. Hanna, Creditor-Appellees v. James J. Joseph, Trustee, Frank A. Barcott Security and Investigation, Real-Party-In-Interest-Appellee
See In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir.1994). 7 The Mildens point to nothing in the record evidencing the filing of a timely notice of appeal from the conversion order, even following the denial of their motion for reconsideration.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Frank J. Stangel, Debtor. Frank J. Stangel v. United States
See In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306 , 1311 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting In re Brickyard, 735 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir.1984)).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Stangel
See In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir 1994)(quoting In re Brickyard, 735 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1984)).
cited
Cited "see"
IN RE: FRANK J. STANGEL, Debtor. FRANK J. STANGEL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
See In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994)(quoting In re Brickyard, 735 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1984)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc.
v.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
v.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
93-15113.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 20, 1994.
42 F.3d 1306
The TAHOE SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
The TAHOE SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 93-15113, 93-15114.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 20, 1994.
ORDER
[*~1311]3
At p. 755, second p, 1.5, insert preceding "As to Sec. 1983 it is established ...", "The section 1983 claim is proper against TRPA. Lake Country Estates v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 399 & n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 1171, 1176 & n. 13, 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979)."
*
The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation