United States v. Claude Birtle, 521 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Claude Birtle, 521 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1984 · …after reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if requested .... ⚠ not in text
6 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" George J. Malhiot, and Marjorie M. Malhiot v. Southern California Retail Clerks Union and Drug Employer Pension and Trust Fund (4×)
9th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
We stated: 50 This court, in an analogous circumstance, will not impose monetary penalties or take other disciplinary actions for an attorney's failure to comply with its orders until "after reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if requested ...." Fed.R.App.P. 46(c); see United States v. Birtle, 521 F.2d 134 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 947 , 96 S.Ct. 3165 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1183 (1976). 51 Id. at 522 . 52 Since section 1927 requires bad faith or intentional misconduct by counsel, I think that counsel should be entitled to present any argume…
discussed Cited "see" Victor Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
Recently, the Supreme Court cautioned that "[l]ike other sanctions, attorney's fees certainly should not be assessed lightly or without fair notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record." Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 , 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2464 , 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980). 25 This court, in an analogous circumstance, will not impose monetary penalties or take other disciplinary actions for an attorney's failure to comply with its orders until "after reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if requested ...." Fed.R.App.P. 46(c);…
discussed Cited "see" Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
This court, in an analogous circumstance, will not impose monetary penalties or take other disciplinary actions for an attorney’s failure to comply with its orders until “after reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and after hearing, if requested .... ” Fed.R.App.P. 46(c); see United States v. Birtle, 521 F.2d 134 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 947 , 96 S.Ct. 3165 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1183 (1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Claude BIRTLE, Defendant-Appellant
75-1234.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 7, 1975.
521 F.2d 134
Richard G. Sherman (argued), Los An-geles, Cal., for defendant-appellant., Robert S. Thaller, Dept. of Justice (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Trask, Choy, Der Heydt.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

An order of this court having issued on July 7, 1975, directed to Richard G. Sherman, Esq., a member of thé bar of this court, directing him to show cause whether he has prosecuted the appeal in the above action with due diligence, and if not whether some penalty should be imposed upon him under Rule 46(c) Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; and a hearing having been held before the above named panel of judges of the court at which time the respondent, Richard G. Sherman, appeared in person and responded orally; and the matter having been taken under advisement, it is found that respondent did not prosecute the appeal in the above case with the due diligence required of him under his responsibility as an officer of this court.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the said Richard G. Sherman pay to the Clerk of this court within 30 days of the date that a copy of this order is filed in the office of the Clerk, the penalty sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250).

Service of a copy of this order on the respondent will be made by the United States Marshal.