Johnson v. Riviera, 77 F.3d 489 (9th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Johnson v. Riviera, 77 F.3d 489 (9th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Fed. Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC (wash, 2019-10-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fed. Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC
Wash. · 2019 · confidence medium
Fund v. Prudential Equity Grp., LLC, 262 F. App'x 822, 825 (9th Cir. 2008)(court order); Moore v. Thornwater 17 No. 95420-8 (consolidated with No. 95436-4) (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting) Co., 155 F. App'x 257, 258 (9th Cir. 2005)(court order); Johnson v. Riviera, noted at 77 F.3d 489 , 1996 WL 56169, at *1 (9th Cir. 1996)(court order); Andresen v. Hunt, noted at 951 F.2d 358 , 1991 WL 268716, at *3 (9th Cir. 1991)(court order)(reading Kittilson as affirming Shermer's reliance holding); Braddock v. Zaycon Foods LLC,No. C16-1756 TSZ, 2017 WL 5989487 , at *2(W.D.
discussed Cited "see" Fleming v. Comm'r
Tax Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Knight v. United States , 77 F.3d 489 [published in full-text format at 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4775 ], 1996 WL 48380 , * 2 (9th Cir.1996) (unpublished) (A Form 4340, is "admissible as self-authenticating under Fed.R.Evid. 902(1) when [] accompanied by a Form 2866 certification that is under seal and bears the appropriate signature.").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Big Stone Broadcasting, Inc. v. Lindbloom
D.S.D. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Sellers v. Henman, 41 F.3d 1100, 1101 (7th Cir.1994) (stating that an affidavit is not a pleading), York v. Ferris State Univ., 36 F.Supp.2d 976, 980 (W.D.Mich.1998) (stating that an affidavit is not a “pleading” under Rule 12(f)), EEOC v. Admiral Maintenance Serv., L.P., 174 F.R.D. 643 (N.D.Ill.1997) (holding that an affidavit is not a pleading and not subject to attack under Rule 12(f)), Knight v. United States, 845 F.Supp. 1372, 1374 (D.Ariz.1993), aff 'd, 77 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 894 , 117 S.Ct. 238 , 136 L.Ed.2d 168 (1996) (motions to strike apply only…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Admiral Maintenance Service, L.P.
N.D. Ill. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Knight v. United States, 845 F.Supp. 1372, 1374 (D.Ariz.1993), aff'd, 77 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 117 S.Ct. 238 , 136 L.Ed.2d 168 (1996) (motions to strike apply only to pleadings and not to motions); Jones v. City of Topeka, 764 F.Supp. 1423, 1425 (D.Kan.1991) (motions to strike are directed at “pleadings;” therefore, such a motion could not be used to strike plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment); International Longshoremen’s Ass’n, Steamship Clerks Local 1624, AFL-CIO v. Virginia Int’l Terminals, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 500, 504 (E.D.Va.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roy E. Johnson, a Resident of Idaho
v.
Charlotte S. Riviera & James L. Fainter, and Their Marital Community Norman P. Rounds Cavalier Group Inc., a Colorado Corporation Consolidated Investment Services, a Corporation
94-36055.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 8, 1996.
77 F.3d 489
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Unpublished

77 F.3d 489

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Roy E. JOHNSON, a resident of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Charlotte S. RIVIERA & James L. Fainter, and their marital
community; Norman P. Rounds; Cavalier Group Inc., a
Colorado Corporation; Consolidated Investment Services, a
Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-36055.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 4, 1995.
Decided Feb. 8, 1996.

Before: FLETCHER, KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[*]

2

Johnson appeals the district court's ruling that defendant's letter of June 24, 1991, didn't amount to an actionable misrepresentation under Wash.Rev.Code § 21.20.010. In making a case under section 21.20.010, the investor must prove reliance on the misrepresentations. Hines v. Data Line Sys., 787 P.2d 8, 12 (Wash.1990). The district court found that Johnson didn't rely on the June 24, 1991 letter. This finding was supported by plaintiff's own testimony:

3

Q. [Riviera's atty.] Isn't it true, Mr. Johnson, that you didn't rely on anything in particular in [the June 24, 1991] letter, that you just relied upon what Ms. Riviera told you?

4

A. [Johnson] Yeah, that's right.

5

RT 31. The district court's judgment is therefore

6

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3