green
Positive treatment
10.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Debbs v. California W.C.A.B.
Cf. id. at 1147-48 (setting forth guidelines regarding pre-filing restrictions). 5 We grant appellee California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's request for judicial notice of prior state and federal actions brought by the Debbses. 6 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Koshin Hiratani v. United States Department of Treasury the Federal Bureau of Investigation Dick Guiliano
(2×)
Id. at 1147-48. 6 The court's order in this case meets all of these requirements.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodney C. Phelps v. Lockheed Missiles & Space, Co., Inc.
Id. at 1147-48. 13 In this case, the order drafted by the district court meets all four requirements.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mouktabis v. Faber
See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir 1990) cert den 498 US 1001 (first determining whether there were “substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions” and then whether the resulting order was appropriately narrow).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Gambale
With respect to the merits, it is well settled that “a pretrial identification procedure that is unduly suggestive violates a defendant’s due process rights and is not admissible” (People v Marshall, 26 NY3d 495, 503 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]). “ ‘[T]here is nothing inherently suggestive’ in showing a witness a surveillance video depicting the defendant and other individuals, provided that the ‘defendant was not singled-out, portrayed unfavorably, or in any other manner prejudiced by polic…
discussed
Cited "see"
GAMBALE, JOSEPH J., PEOPLE v
With respect to the merits, it is well settled that “a pretrial identification procedure that is unduly suggestive violates a defendant’s due process rights and is not admissible” (People v Marshall, 26 NY3d 495, 503 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 , cert denied 498 US 833 ). “ ‘[T]here is nothing inherently suggestive’ in showing a witness a surveillance video depicting the defendant and other individuals, provided that the ‘defendant was not singled-out, portrayed unfavorably, or in any other manner prejudiced by police conduct or commen…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Griffin
Even assuming that the employee was an agent of the police, however, we agree with the suppression court upon viewing the videotape that the quality of the videotape was sufficiently poor that it could not be deemed “ ‘so unnecessarily suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification’ ” (People v Gee, 286 AD2d 62, 67 [2001], affd 99 NY2d 158 [2002]; see generally People v Edmonson, 75 NY2d 672, 677-678 [1990], rearg denied 76 NY2d 846 [1990], cert denied 498 US 1001 [1990]; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jermone Thymes, John Thymes, and Shirley Thymes v. Metropolitan Life, John Thymes, Shirley Thymes v. Metmor Financial, Inc.
See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.), (district court's vexatious litigant order reviewed for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1001 (1990); Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir.1994) (district court's ruling regarding local rules is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
examined
Cited "see"
Banks v. Bank of Commerce
(3×)
See id. at 1146-48. 8 Here, the language of the district court's pre-filing order is substantially similar to the language of the pre-filing order in De Long which we held was overbroad because it enjoined a litigant from filing any future action without leave of the court.
cited
Cited "see"
F.T.C. v. Wells
See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146-49 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1001 (1990). 14 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Johnson
See People v. Edmonson, 75 N.Y.2d 672 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1001 (1990); People v. Sapp, 98 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. 1983); People v. Tatum, 192 Misc. 2d 196 (N.Y.
discussed
Cited "see"
Khairy Aref v. John Marder Patricia Phillips Edward Charles Ash County of Los Angeles Court of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the State of California
See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1001 (1990), and we affirm. 3 A district court has the power to enjoin litigants who have abusive and lengthy histories of litigation. 28 U.S.C.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re James Constant, Debtor. James Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.
See id.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re James Constant, Debtor. (Two Cases) James Constant v. Stephen v. Wilson, District Judge Manuel Real, Chief District Judge Robert P. Aguilar Oscar Davis Wilson Cowen, Judge Edward Smith Helen Nies Pauline Newman Howard Markey Paul Michel United States of America, (Three Cases)
See id. 15 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
cited
Cited "see"
Eugene Soliz, Husband Frances Soliz, Wife v. Murphy, Goering, Roberts & Berkman, P.C.
See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 , 1147-49 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1001 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilbur D. Tinsley v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. Douglas Amyx, Individually Vernon Sanders, Individually
See Tripati v. Beamon, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir.1989); see also DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 , 1148 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1001 (1990) (prefiling injunction must be "narrowly tailored").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gladys L. Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island
See, e.g., Castro, 775 F.2d at 409 & n. 11; see also De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1001 , 111 S.Ct. 562 , 112 L.Ed.2d 569 (1990); In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C.Cir.1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gittin
v.
Rowland, Director, California Department of Corrections
v.
Rowland, Director, California Department of Corrections
No. 90-5897.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 3, 1990.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.