Alma Dalia Ortiz-Moreno v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 7 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Alma Dalia Ortiz-Moreno v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 7 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1997 · …olice officers had no common law immunity for assaulting, battering, and using excessive force ⚠ not in text
64 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Franklin Construction Group, LLC v. Shore (tnmd, 2025-08-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Franklin Construction Group, LLC v. Shore
M.D. Tenn. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
this court has noted that in the absence of a defendant's motion for a more definite statement under rule 12(e), dismissal on the sole basis of a plaintiff's failure to comply with rule 9(b) is inappropriate.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Sudul v. City of Hamtramck (2×)
Mich. Ct. App. · 1997 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
olice officers had no common law immunity for assaulting, battering, and using excessive force
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stanley v. Morgan
5th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Thomas v. City of Houston, 619 F. App’x 291 , 295–96 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Arezzo v. City of Hoboken, 719 F. App’x 115 , 117–18 (3d Cir. 2018); Reid v. City of Flint, 7 F.3d 234, 234 (6th Cir. 1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cameron v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
N.D. Ohio · 2020 · confidence medium
Sec., 486 7 F.3d 234, 248 (noting that “credibility determinations regarding subjective complaints rest with the ALJ” as long as they are supported by substantial evidence).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Flythe v. District of Columbia
D.D.C. · 2014 · confidence medium
See Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir.2011) (reversing the district court’s entry of judgment for the defendant on the issue of compensatory damages when the motion for summary judgment never raised the issue of damages in the first place); Legge v. Wagner, 7 F.3d 234, at *3 (6th Cir.1993) (finding that the district court's granting of summary judgment on failure to plead fraud grounds was prejudicial to the plaintiffs because "defendants' motion for summary judgment was based solely on the argument that the Wag-ners could not be held individually liable under RICO, [and] the di…
discussed Cited "see" Dymarkowski v. Savage (In re Hadley)
Bankr. N.D. Ohio · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Oakes, 7 F.3d 234 (Table), 1993 WL 339725, *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 1993)(ciimp, In re Sierra Steel, Inc., 96 B.R. 275, 277 (9th Cir. BAP 1989) and explaining that the presumption vanishes only after transferee comes forward with substantial evidence of solvency).
discussed Cited "see" McLane v. Bostater (In re McLane)
Bankr. N.D. Ohio · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Oakes, 7 F.3d 234 (Table), 1993 WL 339725, *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 1993) (citing In re Sierra Steel, Inc., 96 B.R. 275, 277 (9th Cir. BAP 1989) and explaining that the presumption vanishes only after transferee comes forward with substantial evidence of solvency).
discussed Cited "see" Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians
2d Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
In holding that federal habeas relief is not available under § 1303 to test the validity of a child custody decree of an Indian tribal court, courts have relied on the fact that the “custody involved is not the kind which has traditionally prompted federal courts to assert their jurisdiction [in challenges to state court custody decrees].” Weatherwax on Behalf of Carlson v. Fairbanks, 619 F.Supp. 294, 296 (D.Mont.1985); see Sandman v. Dakota, 816 F.Supp. 448, 451 (W.D.Mich.1992) (following Weatherwax ), aff'd mem., 7 F.3d 234 (6th Cir.1993).
discussed Cited "see" Poodry v. Tonawanda Band Of Seneca Indians
2d Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
In holding that federal habeas relief is not available under § 1303 to test the validity of a child custody decree of an Indian tribal court, courts have relied on the fact that the "custody involved is not the kind which has traditionally prompted federal courts to assert their jurisdiction [in challenges to state court custody decrees]." Weatherwax on Behalf of Carlson v. Fairbanks, 619 F.Supp. 294, 296 (D.Mont.1985); see Sandman v. Dakota, 816 F.Supp. 448, 451 (W.D.Mich.1992) (following Weatherwax ), aff'd mem., 7 F.3d 234 (6th Cir.1993).
discussed Cited "see" Tanya Marsh v. Johnnie W. Jones, Jr., Warden
5th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Prunty v. Branson, 1993 WL 328037 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 1993), 7 F.3d 234 (table) (holding that state prisoner seeking only money damages in section 1983 suit need not exhaust administrative remedies if such remedies do not provide for the award of money damages) (citing McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 149-51 , 112 S.Ct. at 1089 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Eric R. Schwartz, as Trustee dated 3/4/2019 v. Halwani
Bankr. S.D. Florida · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
It is well established that “a contingent liability cannot be valued at its potential face amount ....” Nordberg v. Arab Banking Corp. (In re Chase & Sanborn Corp.), 904 F.2d 588, 594 (11th Cir. 1990); see also Oakes v. Spalding (In re Oakes), 7 F.3d 234 at *3 (6th Cir. 1993); Xonics, 841 F.2d at 200 (contingent liabilities not valued at face amounts, even if no uncertainty about what firm will owe if the contingency materializes).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of Tennessee ex rel William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General v. Clayton R. Smart
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
The Supreme Court has held that “a witness loses the privilege by failing to claim it promptly even though the information being sought remains undisclosed when the privilege is claimed.” Id. at 654 , 96 S.Ct. at 1182 , n.8 (citing U.S. v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 148 , 52 S.Ct. 63, 64 , 76 L.Ed. 210, 212 (1931), disapproved on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U.S. 52 , 84 S.Ct. 1594 , 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964)); see also Morgan v. City of Columbus, 7 F.3d 234 (Table), 1993 WL 389954 (6th Cir. 1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Michael Friedman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
6th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also In re Newman, 7 F.3d 234 (Table), 1993 WL 328035, *2 (6th Cir.1993)(unpublished opinion)(“The question of whether a particular set of facts satisfies (or fails to satisfy) the requisite burden of proof is an inseparable part of the factfinding process and as such is reviewed — together with the facts — for clear error.”)(citing 1 Steven A. Childress & Martha S. Davis, Federal Standards of Review § 2, 18, at 2-130 (2d ed.1991)).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Friedman v. CIR
6th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also In re Newman, 7 F.3d 234 (Table), 1993 these assets would never be repaid.” J.A. at 64.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harvey v. Star
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Sandman v. Dakota, 816 F.Supp. 448, 451 (W.D.Mich.1992)(rejecting use of § 1303 to challenge child custody decree), aff'd, 7 F.3d 234 (6th Cir.1993)(Table) with DeMent v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Court, 874 F.2d 510 , 513 (8th Cir.1989)(approving use of § 1303 to challenge validity of child custody order).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Samuel Campbell v. Hugh Morrison, Lawrence Wideman, Patrick Stano, Jan Gelsleichter, Michael Scarborough, Robert Dwyer
6th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Roxbury v. Paul, 838 F.Supp. 1204 (W.D.Mich.1992), aff'd, 7 F.3d 234 (6th Cir.1993); Telerico v. Stolicker, No. 91-004899 (Mich.Ct.App.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alma Dalia Ortiz-Moreno
v.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
93-3224.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Sep 24, 1993.
7 F.3d 234
Unpublished
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 89%
Citer courts: Michigan Court of Appeals (2) · M.D. Tennessee (1)

7 F.3d 234

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Alma Dalia ORTIZ-MORENO, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 93-3224.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Sept. 24, 1993.

Before: KENNEDY and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

1

Alma Dalia Ortiz-Moreno petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily dismissing her appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge denying her relief from deportation pursuant to Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a). Ortiz-Moreno's motion for pauper status on appeal is granted.

2

Ortiz-Moreno is a Mexican native who entered the United States as a permanent resident in 1973, at the age of ten. She has three children who were born in the United States. Her parents and siblings are all permanent residents or citizens of this country. In 1991, she was convicted following a jury trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. She was sentenced to 72 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. During her incarceration, deportation proceedings were commenced based on her aggravated felony and controlled substances convictions. She was found to be subject to deportation, and moved for relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). A hearing was held before an Immigration Judge who determined that Ortiz-Moreno was not entitled to relief.

3

Ortiz-Moreno filed a timely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Her notice of appeal listed the grounds for appeal as violations of her Constitutional rights and rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She indicated that she would file a brief in support of her appeal, and moved for and was granted two extensions of time in which to do so. However, the final deadline of February 5, 1993, passed without a brief being filed. The Board then summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to file a timely brief or to give specific reasons for the appeal, pursuant to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a). Ortiz-Moreno then filed a timely appeal to this court.

4

Upon review, it is concluded that summary dismissal was proper in this case because Ortiz-Moreno failed to specify what aspects of the Immigration Judge's decision were wrong and why. See Nazakat v. INS, 981 F.2d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir.1992); Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.1992); Athehortua-Vanegas v. INS, 876 F.2d 238, 240-41 (1st Cir.1989). Her argument that she did file a timely brief is illogical, as she admits mailing the brief on February 9, 1993, when a final extension had been granted until February 5. Moreover, no other abuse of the unusually broad discretion to award relief under § 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act is apparent from the record. See Ashby v. INS, 961 F.2d 555, 557 (5th Cir.1992).

5

The order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is accordingly affirmed. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.