green
Positive treatment
14.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Manley
See, e.g., United States v. Vega, 438 F.3d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2006); Cisneros, 328 F.3d at 615 ; United States v. El Edwy, 272 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2001); United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Savader
El-Edwy further notes that this procedure ensures “that the person receives the earliest opportunity to seek conditional release.” Id. at 153 ; cf. United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1237-1238 (9th Cir.1995) (“the magistrate judge [in the arresting district] makes the decision whether to hold the person as the proper defendant to answer to the charge, and if so, whether to release him on bail”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Dennis Tan Ong
Tones, id. (citing United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1235 (9th Cir.1995)); see also United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 615 (10th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cannon
As used in § 3145, “ ‘the court having original jurisdiction over the offense’ means the court in the district in which the prosecution is pending.” United States v. El-Edwy, 272 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir.2001); see also United States v. Vega, 438 F.3d 801, 804 (7th Cir.2006); Cisneros, 328 F.3d at 615 ; United States v. Torres, 86 F.3d 1029, 1031 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1236-37 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Pratt
See, e.g., United States v. Brannon, 208 F.3d 227 , 227 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1235 (9th Cir. 1995); Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990); United States v. Fernandez-Toledo, 749 F.2d 703, 705 (11th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Petersen
United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Matthew J. Harrison
See id. at 151-52; United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Vega
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In Evans, the Ninth Circuit stated “[pjursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , the magistrate judge before whom the defendant is brought is required to order that such person be detained or released pending judicial proceedings.” Evans, 62 F.3d at 1235 (the magistrate judge before whom the defendant is first brought upon arrest “makes the decision whether to hold the person as the proper defendant to answer to the charge, and if so, whether to release him on bail”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carpenter
United States v. Calderon, 243 F.3d 587, 589 (2d Cir.2001) (collecting cases and explaining that “[v]enue is not jurisdictional” and is waived by a “valid plea”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 2616 , 150 L.Ed.2d 770 (2001); United States v. Miller, 111 F.3d 747, 750 (10th Cir.1997) (“A defendant can waive venue rights through inaction, such as failing to object to venue during trial.”); United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.1995) (noting how a defendant’s guilty plea waives the right to challenge venue).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mohy Mohamed El-Edwy, AKA Mohy Eldin Ahmed, AKA Mohyeldin M. Euclawy, and AKA Mohyeldin M. Eudawy
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Quoting from the dissent *154 ing opinion in Evans, he asserts it is “unlikely that Congress intended to vary the territorial hierarchy and place appellate review [of a magistrate judge’s order] in a district court and court of appeals far removed from the place of the original decision.” Evans, 62 F.3d at 1240 (Noonan, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Douglas
(2×)
United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.1995);United States v. Corona, 34 F.3d 876, 878-79 (9th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Rather, it appears to be merely a recitation of the magistrate judge of what the prosecutor intends to seek once the accused is brought before a judicial officer as required by Rules 5 and 40. 5 The factors to be considered by a judicial officer in granting or denying bail, such as the accused's "character, family ties, employment, financial condition, length of residence, community ties" have been described as "best determined by the court in which the person is apprehended if the person happens, as is the case here, to be a resident of the district in which apprehended." U.S. v. Evans, 62 F.…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Godines-Lupian
See United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir.1995); see also, United States v. Vega, 438 F.3d 801 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610 (10th Cir.2003); United States v. Torres, 86 F.3d 1029 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Cisneros
See United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir.1995) (Wallace, C.J., concurring) (stating in a case involving review under § 3145 of magistrate judge’s detention order that “[o]nly that district court [i.e., the district court with original jurisdiction over the offense] has the authority to review the magistrate judge’s order”); cf. United States v. Cheeseman, 783 F.2d 38, 41 (2d Cir.1986) (“[T]he appropriate course for the Government would have been to await the setting of release conditions and the issuance of release orders by the Magistrate, and then pursue its appella…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
See United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
See United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Thompson
See United States v. Evans (9th Cir. 1995), 62 F.3d 1233, 1236; Hanson v. United States (9th Cir. 1960), 285 F.2d 27, 28 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fabio Alberto Torres
(2×)
See United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1235 (9th Cir.1995) (authority to review magistrate judge's detention order resides with the district court where the prosecution is pending). 8 Accordingly, appellant's application for the relief described above is 9 DENIED.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Tommy Y., Jr.
See also United States v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir.1995) (“Strictly speaking, this is a matter of venue, not jurisdiction, because this constitutional right can be waived.”); Wilkett v. United States, 655 F.2d 1007, 1011 (10th Cir.1981) (“Venue in federal criminal cases ... is not jurisdictional.”); United States v. Walden, 464 F.2d 1015 , 1016 n. 1 (4th Cir.1972) (“[Ijmproper venue is not a jurisdictional defect[.j”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Phyllis Wright Harris, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Her Three Children Beverly Harris Butler, Formerly Beverly Harris Samuel Harris
v.
Joint School District No. 241 Board of Trustees of District No. 241 Trent Woods, Chairperson of Board Al Arnzen, Superintendent v. Citizens Preserving America's Heritage, Inc., an Idaho Corporation, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees
v.
Joint School District No. 241 Board of Trustees of District No. 241 Trent Woods, Chairperson of Board Al Arnzen, Superintendent v. Citizens Preserving America's Heritage, Inc., an Idaho Corporation, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees
93-35839.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 11, 1995.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
102 Ed. Law Rep. 491, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6352,
95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,854
Phyllis Wright HARRIS, on her own behalf and on behalf of
her three children; Beverly Harris Butler,
formerly Beverly Harris; Samuel Harris,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 241; Board of Trustees of
District No. 241; Trent Woods, Chairperson of
Board; Al Arnzen, Superintendent,
Defendants-Appellees,
v.
CITIZENS PRESERVING AMERICA'S HERITAGE, INC., an Idaho
Corporation, et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees.
No. 93-35839.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 11, 1995.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
Before: WRIGHT, WIGGINS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
[*~1233]1
Pursuant to the orders of the United States Supreme Court, Joint Sch. Dist. 241 v. Harris, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2604, 132 L.Ed.2d 849 (1995), and Citizens Preserving America's Heritage, Inc. v. Harris, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2604, 132 L.Ed.2d 849 (1995), the opinion of this court, reported at 41 F.3d 447 (9th Cir.1994), is vacated, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
[*~1238]2
The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment and dismiss the complaint as moot. See Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92, 93-94, 99 S.Ct. 2149, 2149-50, 60 L.Ed.2d 735 (1979).
[*~1239]3
Appellants' motion for fees is denied.