green
Positive treatment
26.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pizzuto v. Tewalt
See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 644 (2004) (“[A] constitutional challenge seeking to permanently enjoin the use of lethal injection may amount to a challenge to the fact of the sentence itself . . . . [A] State retains a significant interest in meting out a sentence of death in a timely fashion.”); Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (“We also recognize that the State ordinarily has ‘a strong interest in enforcing its judgments without undue interference from federal courts . . . .’”); Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1132, 1143 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pizzuto v. Tewalt
See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 644 (2004) (“[A] constitutional challenge seeking to permanently enjoin the use of lethal injection may amount to a challenge to the fact of the sentence itself . . . . [A] State retains a significant interest in meting out a sentence of death in a timely fashion.”); Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (“We also recognize that the State ordinarily has ‘a strong interest in enforcing its judgments without undue interference from federal courts . . . .’”); Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1132, 1143 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Wood, III v. Charles Ryan
RYAN 45 members of our court, Chief Judge Kozinski observed that “Arizona has a legitimate interest in avoiding a public attack on its private drug manufacturing sources.” Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1132, 1143 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozinski, C.J, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Wood, III v. Charles Ryan
(2×)
In a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc joined by seven other members of our court, Chief Judge Kozinski observed that “Arizona has a legitimate interest in avoiding a public attack on its private drug manufacturing sources.” Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1132, 1143 (9th Cir.2010) (Kozinski, C.J, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel Lopez v. Janice Brewer
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1132, 1133 (9th Cir. 2010) (Wardlaw & W.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel Lopez v. Janice Brewer
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1132, 1133 (9th Cir. 2010) (Wardlaw & W.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel Lopez v. Janice Brewer
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1132, 1133 (9th Cir.2010) (Wardlaw & W.
discussed
Cited "see"
In re: George Lombardi v.
(2×)
See Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1132, 1143 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (“Certainly Arizona has a legitimate interest in avoiding a public attack on its private drug manufacturing sources . . . .”). -10- The privilege issues are significant and complex, but we express no view on them, because it is clear and indisputable that the discovery ordered by the district court is not relevant to any claim that should survive a motion to dismiss, and that the Director has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Troy MATTOS; Jayzel Mattos, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Darren AGARANO; Ryan Aikala Stuart Kunioka; Halayudha MacKnight, Defendants-Appellants, and Maui County, Defendant
v.
Darren AGARANO; Ryan Aikala Stuart Kunioka; Halayudha MacKnight, Defendants-Appellants, and Maui County, Defendant
08-15567.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 4, 2010.
Eric A. Seitz, Esquire, Lawrence I. Kawasaki, Esquire, Law Office of Eric A. Seitz, Della Au Belatti, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs-Appellees., Moana Monique Lutey, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Department of the Corporation Counsel, Wailuku, HI, for Defendants-Appellants.
Kozinski.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published | Civil
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.