At page 237 cited at this page1 citing case
- Lim v. Miller, No. 1:21-cv-01734 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2022).See Coats v. Woods, 819 12 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987). 13 In Coats, the plaintiff invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and alleged that her ex-husband and 14 others involved in state court proceedings had wrongfully deprived her of custody of her…
“[i]f the constitutional claims in the case have independent merit, the state courts are competent to hear them”
- David Otis Smith v. Martha Coleen Johnson, Richard Lee Johnson, 974 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1992).unpublished“[i]f the constitutional claims in the case have independent merit, the state courts are competent to hear them”
- Burlison v. Burlison, 978 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1992).unpublished“[i]f the constitutional claims in the case have independent merit, the state courts are competent to hear them”
“'This case, while raising constitutional issues, is at its core a child custody dispute.'”
- Susan Latta v. C. L. Otter, No. 14-35420 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2015).published“'This case, while raising constitutional issues, is at its core a child custody dispute.'”
- Jackson v. Tran, No. 3:26-cv-00160 (D. Alaska Apr. 14, 2026).“This case, while raising constitutional issues, is at its core a child custody dispute.”
Other citing cases
- Clarence I. Paulsen, III v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, of Fci Sheridan, Jeffrey D. Pullins v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Dennis W. Bohner v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Randolph Brown v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Jeremy E. James v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Karlos Lamar Grier v. Joseph Crabtree, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Sheridan, Or, Shawn Robert Lee v. Robert Hood, Adrian L. Johnson v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Sabil M. Mujahid v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Jacob Jones v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Vincente Subia v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Jason Robert Tuite v. Robert A. Hood, Warden, Sean Moore v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Earl Leonard v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Charles R. Norgaard v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Robert Allen Furnas v. Charles A. Daniel, Warden, 413 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2005).published
- Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2005).published
- Air North Am. v. Dep't of Transp., 937 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1991).published
- George L. Barry v. Otis R. Bowen, 825 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1987).published
- Nash v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1989).published
- Nash v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1989).published
v.
Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary, Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING EN. BANC AND AMENDING OPINION
The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing, and Judges Browning and Beezer have voted to reject the suggestion for a rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc hearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.
The opinion filed on January 13, 1987, 807 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir.), is amended as follows:
Page 1505, first column, line 23: Correct to read administrative law judges and the Appeals Council. •
Page 1506, first column, line 5, insert: Furthermore, the effect of the program on the Appeals Council’s impartiality militates against reinstating their decisions. See Barry v. Heckler, 620 F.Supp. 779, 782 (N.D.Cal.1985).
Change the next sentence to read: We agree with the district court that the ALJ’s decisions must be reinstated and the claimants provided disability benefits.
Page 1506, footnote 8: Delete the words: previously awarded.
Page 1505, first column, last paragraph, starting with “Here, claimants”: Delete the paragraph.
Page 1505, second column, line 25, add: Cf. Stoddard Lumber Co., Inc. v. Marshall, 627 F.2d 984, 986-88 (9th Cir.1980) (inspection procedure not an exercise of delegated legislative power).