green
Positive treatment
13.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sinclair Oil Corporation v. Oneok Energy Services Company
“The interpretation of a settlement agreement, like that of a contract, is a question of law subject to de novo review . . . .” Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352, 354 (9th Cir. 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. Windsor Locks Police Department
Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp., v. Palmadessa, 173 F.3d 481, 484 (2d Cir.1999) (“If a [settlement agreement] is clear, courts must take care not to alter or go beyond the express terms of the agreement, or to impose obligations on the parties that are not mandated by the unambiguous terms of the agreement itself.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); cf. Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352, 354 (9th Cir.1982) (finding that reference by name only in a release, without specifying one capacity or the other, is most reasonably construed as reference to the defendant in his individu…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United Commercial Insurance Service, Inc. v. PayMaster Corp.
Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352, 354 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1052 , 104 S.Ct. 735 , 79 L.Ed.2d 194 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Commercial Insurance Service, Incorporated, D/B/A United Checkwriter Services Burton D. Rayden Jeffrey L. Rayden Joel Rayden v. The Paymaster Corporation, the Paymaster Corporation, Counterclaim v. Burton D. Rayden, Counterclaim and American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Counterclaim
Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352, 354 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1052 , 104 S.Ct. 735 , 79 L.Ed.2d 194 (1984). 9 "The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally." Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co.
Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352, 354 (9th Cir.1982) (“[t]he interpretation of a settlement agreement, like that of a contract, is a question of law subject to de novo review”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Orr Water Ditch Company
Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352, 354 (9th Cir.1982) ("[t]he interpretation of a settlement agreement, like that of a contract, is a question of law subject to de novo review").
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. Ariyoshi
Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352, 358 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1052 , 104 S.Ct. 735 , 79 L.Ed.2d 194 (1984) (Choy, J. dissenting).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi
(3×)
It went on to hold that this Court, in awarding attorneys’ fees, had improperly “inelude[d] in the award those fees attributable to work performed in prevailing against the Dental Board defendants,” and directed it to “determine and award only such additional attorneys’ fees attributable to work performed in prevailing against [the State defendants].” ( 695 F.2d 352 at 355) The court of appeals did not explain what it meant by the word “additional” in its remand instructions.
discussed
Cited "see"
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Keala
See Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352, 355 (9th Cir.1982) (improper to include in attorneys’ fee award fees attributable to work performed in prevailing against settling defendant where settlement includes such fees).
discussed
Cited "see"
Oten v. Colorado Board of Social Services
See Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1052 , 104 S.Ct. 735 , 79 L.Ed.2d 194 (1984) (suit is proper against individual members of state dental board and executive director to challenge procedures for administering dental examinations); Eslinger v. Thomas, 476 F.2d 225 (4th Cir.1973) (clerk of state senate proper party defendant in suit challenging senate resolution requiring clerk to deny employment to females); May v. Cooperman, 578 F.Supp. 1308 (D.N.J.1984) (commissioner of state department of education proper party defendant in suit challenging state l…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore-Bey v. Delrosario
See Estate of Spry v. Greg & Ken, Inc., 749 N.E.2d 1269, 1275 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (“our state will not interpret a contract to mean something other than what its plain language provides”); see also Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352, 354 (9th Cir.1982) (holding that when a release does not specify the defendants’ capacities, the most reasonable construction is that the release refers to both official and individual capacities).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Misischia v. Pirie
Dr. Misischia also argues that the district court should have reviewed the Board’s procedure for compliance with the federal decree in Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, Civil No. 76-0455 (D.Haw.1980); see also Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352 (9th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5646, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9623 Arthur J. Misischia, D.M.D. v. Jennifer R. Pirie, R.D.H., Individually, and in Her Capacity as a Member of the Board of Dental Examiners Donald T. Kawane, D.D.S., Individually, and in His Capacity as a Member of the Board of Dental Examiners Milton Fujiuchi, D.D.S., Individually, and in His Capacity as a Member of the Board of Dental Examiners Thad S. Kawakami-Wong, D.D.S., Individually, and in His Capacity as a Member of the Board of Dental Examiners Angela M.A. Chin, D.M.D., Individually and in Her Capacity as a Member of the Board of Dental Examiners Marcy M. Kawasaki-Haines, D.D.S., Individually, and in Her Capacity as a Chairperson of the Board of Dental Examiners Frank K. Kajawara, D.D.S. Alan T. Miyamoto, D.D.S. Martin Zais, D.D.S. Thomas Green and Carlina Bartolome, Individually and in Their Capacity as Members of the Board of Dental Examiners
When Dr. Misischia elected not to appeal to the Hawaii Circuit Court from the Board's decision regarding its examination of the mannequin and his other procedural challenges, the Board's decision became final, and precluded reexamination in federal court for procedural errors. 31 Dr. Misischia also argues that the district court should have reviewed the Board's procedure for compliance with the federal decree in Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, Civil No. 76-0455 (D.Haw.1980); see also Pekarsky v. Ariyoshi, 695 F.2d 352 (9th Cir.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lilyan Baca, Francisca Mariscal, Sharon Robertson, Loron Stowers, Seab Lee, Michael Saldana, by and Through Rosario Saldana, His Mother and Next Friend
v.
George Campbell, Robert Corbin, Ed Pastor, Henry H. Haws and Hawley Atkinson, Individually and as Members of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Arizona Joseph Prekup, Assistant County Manager for Health Services of Maricopa County, Arizona
v.
George Campbell, Robert Corbin, Ed Pastor, Henry H. Haws and Hawley Atkinson, Individually and as Members of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Arizona Joseph Prekup, Assistant County Manager for Health Services of Maricopa County, Arizona
79-3794.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 20, 1982.
Published
Lilyan BACA, Francisca Mariscal, Sharon Robertson, Loron
Stowers, Seab Lee, Michael Saldana, by and through
Rosario Saldana, his mother and next
friend; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
George CAMPBELL, Robert Corbin, Ed Pastor, Henry H. Haws and
Hawley Atkinson, individually and as members of the Board of
Supervisors of Maricopa County, Arizona; Joseph Prekup,
Assistant County Manager for Health Services of Maricopa
County, Arizona, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 79-3794.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued Aug. 10, 1981.
Submitted June 30, 1982.
Decided Dec. 20, 1982.
John G. Balentine, Southern Ariz. Legal Aid, Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Gordon Goodnow, Jr., Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, William P. Copple, Judge.
Before SKELTON,[*] Senior Judge, KILKENNY and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
1
The matter is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment, 455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982). The district court may, if it deems it advisable, conduct further proceedings to supplement the record.
KILKENNY, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
2
I would hold that the remand should be limited to the precise question of whether the post-judgment motion unfairly surprised or prejudiced the appellees. White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment, 455 U.S. 445, at page ----, 102 S.Ct. 1162, at pages 1167-1168. In passing on the question, the district court might, if it deems it advisable, conduct further proceedings to supplement the record.
*
Honorable Byron G. Skelton, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Claims, sitting by designation