green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.1 score
“in this case, the order of remand did not resolve a matter of substantive law, as in pelleport.... the ruling of the district court was that the state cause of action alleged in complaint was not an artfully pled federal claim that was preempted by federal labor law.”
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9269, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,299 Arthur Calderon, Warden, and James Gomez, Director of the California Department of Corrections v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Blufford Hayes, Jr., Real Party in Interest
when the district court's order is correct as a matter of law, it is obvious that the writ of mandamus should not be issued.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mary Ann Hansen v. Blue Cross of California Ventura County Foundation for Medical Care
in this case, the order of remand did not resolve a matter of substantive law, as in pelleport.... the ruling of the district court was that the state cause of action alleged in complaint was not an artfully pled federal claim that was preempted by federal labor law.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hendee v. Putnam Township
Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454-55 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 , 108 S. Ct.775, 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hurd v. United States
See Furka v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 824 F.2d 330, 332 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042 , 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988); Berg v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 759 F.2d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1985); Korpi v. United States, 961 F.Supp. 1335, 1347 (N.D.Cal. 1997), aff'd, 145 F.3d 1338 , 1998 WL 231207 (1998).
cited
Cited "see"
Moore v. United States
See Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454-55 , amended, 830 F.2d 968 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988); see also Southern Pacific Transp.
discussed
Cited "see"
Carson Harbor Village Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, Dba Carson Harbor Village Mobile Home Park v. City of Carson, a Municipal Corporation
See Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449 , 1455 n. 6 (9th Cir.) (quoting MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340 , 353 n. 8, 106 S.Ct. 2561, 2568 , 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (1986)), modified on other grounds, 830 F.2d 968 (9th Cir.1987), ce rt. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Picard v. Bay Area Regional Transit District
Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 857 F.2d 567 , 569 n. 1 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989); see Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1456 (9th Cir.1987), modified in other respects, 830 F.2d 968 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988) (procedural due process claim found not to be ripe because substantive due process claim was not ripe).
discussed
Cited "see"
Herman Krangel, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. General Dynamics Corporation, Defendants-Petitioners
See Survival Systems Division of the Whittaker Corp. v. U.S. District Court, 825 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042 , 108 S.Ct. 774 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988) (discretionary remand orders generally reviewable only by petition for writ of mandamus because such orders do not finally determine a substantive legal issue under the collateral order doctrine).
cited
Cited "see"
Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Elvisly Yours, Inc. Elvisly Yours, Ltd. Sid Shaw
See Ghandi v. Police Dep’t. of Detroit, 747 F.2d 338 , 354 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042 , 108 S.Ct. 774 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Traweek v. City & County of San Francisco
See Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449 , 1453 n. 4 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Traweek v. City and County of San Francisco
See Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449 , 1453 n. 4 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Wright v. United States
See Chula Vista City School Dist. v. Bennett, 824 F.2d 1573 , 1582 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert denied, 484 U.S. 1042 , 108 S.Ct. 774 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Unity Ventures v. County of Lake
We also noted in Unity Ventures that the Ninth Circuit, drawing upon Yolo County and Williamson County, applied the Court’s takings analysis to claims involving equal protection and substantive due process: “In Kinzli, we interpreted Williamson and MacDonald to require a final decision by the government which inflicts a concrete harm upon the plaintiff landowner.” Her rington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1494 (9th Cir.1987) (emphasis in original), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989); see Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449 (9th Cir.1987), ce…
discussed
Cited "see"
Unity Ventures v. County Of Lake
We also noted in Unity Ventures that the Ninth Circuit, drawing upon Yolo County and Williamson County, applied the Court's takings analysis to claims involving equal protection and substantive due process: "In Kinzli, we interpreted Williamson and MacDonald to require a final decision by the government which inflicts a concrete harm upon the plaintiff landowner." Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488, 1494 (9th Cir.1987) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989); see Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449 (9th Cir.1987), cert. de…
discussed
Cited "see"
Landmark Land Co. of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Buchanan
See Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454 , Amended by 830 F.2d 968 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988); Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., 703 F.2d 1141 , 1146 n. 2 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 847 , 104 S.Ct. 151 , 78 L.Ed.2d 141 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Landmark Land Company Of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Buchanan
See Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454 , Amended by 830 F.2d 968 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988); Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., 703 F.2d 1141 , 1146 n. 2 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 847 , 104 S.Ct. 151 , 78 L.Ed.2d 141 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Remy v. Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
See Chula Vista City School Dist v. Bennett, 824 F.2d 1573 , 1578-79 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 774 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988); Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed.Cir.1983). .
discussed
Cited "see"
John W. Ethridge, Jr. v. Harbor House Restaurant, an Unknown Entity Jim Murphy, Individually and as Agent of Harbor House Restaurant, and Does 1-25, John W. Ethridge, Jr., Plaintiff/counter-Defendant/appellant v. San Diego Culinary Concepts, D/B/A Harbor House Jim Murphy, Individually and as Agent of San Diego Culinary Concepts and Does 1-25, Defendants/counter
See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 , 87 S.Ct. 903 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). 67 In Survival Systems v. United States District Court, 825 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 774 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988), we implicitly assumed claims preempted by the NLRA are removable to federal court.
cited
Cited "see"
Convertors Division of American Hospital Supply Corporation v. The United States
See Chula Vista City School District v. Bennett, 824 F.2d 1573, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 774 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Captain James H. Smith v. Secretary of the Air Force, Verne Orr
See Chula Vista City School Dist. v. Bennett, 824 F.2d 1573 , 1578-79 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 774 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988). . 28 U.S.C. § 1491 . .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Celentano v. City of West Haven
Similarly, “only when [the property owner] receives a ‘ “final definitive [decision] regarding how [the local agency] will apply the regulations” ’ to [the property in issue] will the district court be able to review ‘the alleged dissimilar treatment accorded similarly situated landowners.’ ” Landmark Land Co., Inc. v. Buchanan, 874 F.2d 717 , 722 (10th Cir.1989) (quoting Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 857 F.2d 567, 569 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989)) (citations omitted); see also Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 144…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dotson v. United States Postal Service
Watkins v. Northwestern Ohio Tractor Pullers Assn., 630 F.2d 1155, 1158 (6th Cir.1980) (citations omitted); see also, Ghandi v. Police Dept. of the City of Detroit, 747 F.2d 338 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, sub nom., Ghandi v. Fayed, 484 U.S. 1042 , 108 S.Ct. 774 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dwight G. Nelson v. City of Selma
The council’s action rejecting the proposed project and limiting density to R-l, single family, constituted “a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property.” See MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 348 , 106 S.Ct. 2561, 2566 , 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (1986); see also Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1453-54 (9th Cir.1987), amended on other grounds, 830 F.2d 968 (1987), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States
E.g., Culebras Enter.’s Corp. v. Rivera Rios, 813 F.2d 506, 515 (1st Cir.1987); Lit- tlefield v. City of Afton, 785 F.2d 596 , 609 (8th Cir.1986); see also, e.g., Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir.1987) (plaintiff was generally required to seek a variance from permit denial by the city, but was not required to seek the variance where that application would be futile), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988); Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 816 F.2d 1514, 1515 (11th Cir.1987) (plaintiff was generally required to seek a variance from a permit …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Andrews v. Webb
See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(2); see also Chula Vista City School Dist. v. Bennett, 824 F.2d 1573 , 1578-79 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 774 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988); Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed.Cir. 1983); cf. Gowar v. Lehman, 799 F.2d 925 (4th Cir.1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Inc.
v.
Furka, Administratrix of the Estate of Furka
v.
Furka, Administratrix of the Estate of Furka
No. 87-910.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 25, 1988.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.