United States v. John Lee Bowen, 485 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. John Lee Bowen, 485 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Steven Duarte (ca9, 2024-07-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Steven Duarte
9th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Feldman v. Ariz. Sec’y of State’s Off., 841 F.3d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 2016) (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting from the grant of rehearing en banc); United States v. Bowen, 485 F.2d 1388, 1388 (9th Cir. 1973) (Chambers, J., same); United States v. Seale, 550 F.3d 377, 377 (5th Cir. 2008) (Smith, J., same).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. John Lee Bowen (2×)
9th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Bowen, 9 Cir., 485 F.2d 1388 . 1 Mr. Justice Stewart's opinion is explicitly identified as 'the opinion of the Court.' It was approved by a majority of five justices, including Mr. Justice Powell, who stated, '* * * I join the opinion of the Court * * *.' 413 U.S. at 275.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cerniglia v. Pretty
D. Maryland · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Borg-Warner Acceptance Corporation v. Rossi, 365 F.Supp. 56, 59 (D.Md. *1171 1972), aff'd 485 F.2d 1388 (4th Cir.1973); Reserve Insurance Co. v. Duckett, 240 Md. 591 , 214 A.2d 754 (1965), appeal after remand, 249 Md. 108 , 238 A.2d 536 (1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
John Lee BOWEN, Appellant
72-1012.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 23, 1973.
485 F.2d 1388
Michael D. Nasatir (argued), Nasatir, Sherman & Hirsch, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant., Shelby R. Gott, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
Chambers, Merrill, Koelsch, Browning, Duniway, Ely, Hufstedler, Wright, Trask, Choy, Goodwin, Wallace, Sneed.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

Michael D. Nasatir (argued), Nasatir, Sherman & Hirsch, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.

Shelby R. Gott, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL, KOELSCH, BROWNING, DUNIWAY, ELY, HUFSTEDLER, WRIGHT, TRASK, CHOY, GOODWIN, WALLACE and SNEED, Circuit Judges.

Lead Opinion

ORDER.

A majority of the judges of this court in active service have voted to hear the above case en banc on December 11, 1973, at 1:30 P.M. If counsel desire to submit additional briefs, such briefs must be filed in the Clerk’s Office of this Court no later than November 15, 1973.

Argument will be in Courtroom No. 1 in the United States Court of Appeals and Post Office Building, Seventh and Mission Streets, San Francisco.

(Circuit Judge Chambers will file a dissent to the foregoing order.)

Dissent

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent from the order for en banc. At issue is the retroactivity of Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 411 U.S. 903, 93 S.Ct. 1531, 36 L.Ed.2d 192 (1973). Also involved in Bowen under Almeidcc-Sanchez is the status of an intermittent but fixed checkpoint.

[*1389] I would let the panel, [9 Cir., 462 F.2d 347] decide the case. None of the earmarks of the normal case for en banc are here.

It is inescapable that the Supreme Court will decide the questions here. They are too big and too far reaching for that Court to ignore them.

This en banc hearing results in about a three-months’ delay in the case getting to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, two or three district courts are almost choked with the retroactive question. Thus, knowing our decision means little in this instance, I was prepared to live with any decision the panel might render.

Taking this case en banc is simply flying off into the air without a payload.