Eric Vongrastic Logan v. City of San Diego, 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Eric Vongrastic Logan v. City of San Diego, 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
66 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re: Thomas Bryon Cattell (bap9, 2024-03-29) · Strongest negative: Weisberg v. Abrams (In Re Weisberg) (paeb, 1998-03-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Weisberg v. Abrams (In Re Weisberg)
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 1998 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf. In re Gionis, 170 B.R. 675 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), aff'd, 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir.1996) ($185,000 awarded to nondebtor spouse is deemed nondischargeable in ease where the parties’ income disparity is arguably similar to those of the parties here; however (1) the nondebtor spouse ultimately prevailed on the custody battle; (2) the entire $185,000 was awarded by the state domestic relations court prior to the bankruptcy; (3) the parties’ income disparity, unlike that of the instant parties, continued at all times; (4) the nondebtor spouse did not have any interest in property comparable t…
discussed Cited "see" In re: Thomas Bryon Cattell
9th Cir. BAP · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Haynie v. Krystal (In re Haynie), 624 B.R. 872 , 876 n.3 (9th Cir. BAP 2021) (citing Gionis v. Wayne (In re Gionis), 170 B.R. 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), aff'd, 92 F.3d 1192 (table) (9th Cir. 1996)). 5 As part of its decision, the court specifically found that Cattell and the remaining defendants each had consented to the bankruptcy court entering final judgment as to the subject matter of the consolidated adversary proceeding. 11 denial of Cattell’s motion to continue trial; (b) denial of Cattell's motion for mistrial; (c) denial of Cattell’s motion for protective order; (d) deni…
cited Cited "see" Dickson v. Abrams, Jr.
Bankr. D. Or. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gionis v. Wayne (In re Gionis), 170 B.R. 675, 682 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), aff’d 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished).
discussed Cited "see" In re: Jerry Richardson and Zoe Richardson
9th Cir. BAP · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gionis v. Wayne (In re Gionis), 170 B.R. 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), aff'd, 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996) (table) (When an appellant fails to include the entire record, we are entitled to presume that he does not regard the missing items as helpful to his appeal). 5 all legal correspondence in a box, including correspondence from PRDO, and they believed that if anything needed attention, their attorney would contact them.
cited Cited "see" In re: Frank Jakubaitis
9th Cir. BAP · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gionis v. Wayne (In re Gionis), 170 B.R. 675, 681 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), aff’d, 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996). 4 except by filing a proof of claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 501 .
discussed Cited "see" In re: Jan Mary Wallace
9th Cir. BAP · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gionis v. Wayne (In re Gionis), 170 B.R. 675 , 680–81 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), aff’d, 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996) 28 (table). -18- 1 findings on fraudulent intent, reliance, proximate causation and 2 materiality are all subject to review for clear error.
discussed Cited "see" In re: Jan Mary Wallace
9th Cir. BAP · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gionis v. Wayne (In re Gionis), 170 B.R. 675 , 680–81 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), aff’d, 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996) 28 (table). -18- 1 findings on fraudulent intent, reliance, proximate causation and 2 materiality are all subject to review for clear error.
cited Cited "see" In Re Lutzke
Bankr. D. Or. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See, In Re Gibson, 103 B.R. 218 (9th Cir. BAP 1989) and In Re Gionis, 170 B.R. 675 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) aff'd, 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Credle v. United States
D. Maryland · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Kole v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 92 F.3d 1192 (unpublished), 1996 WL 436514, at *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 1996); Cao v. Nguyen, No. 92-1669, 1992 WL 373563 , at *1 (E.D.La.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Anderson
W.D. Wash. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
Because Graca lacked the capacity to sue when the district court entered its order, the order was not erroneous.”); Ivy, 585 F.2d at 734 ; see also Kole v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 92 F.3d 1192 , at *1 (9th Cir.1996) (memorandum) (concluding that the district court erred in not granting summary judgment to Korean Air on the ground that “Kole lacked standing under DOHSA because he was not the personal representative for his wife’s estate”); Alcabasa v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd,., 62 F.3d 404, 407-08 (D.C.Cir.1995) (affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the al…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eric Vongrastic Logan
v.
City of San Diego
95-55876.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 5, 1996.
92 F.3d 1192
Unpublished

92 F.3d 1192

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.
Eric Vongrastic LOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-55876.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 29, 1996.[*]
Decided Aug. 5, 1996.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge; SCHROEDER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[**]

2

Eric Vongrastic Logan, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's ruling on the appropriate statute of limitations, Taylor v. University of California, 993 F.2d 710, 711 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 890 (1994), and we affirm.

3

Federal courts apply the statute of limitations of the state in which the claim arises for section 1983 actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 269 (1985). State law also determines the application of tolling doctrines. Id. In California, the applicable statute provides for a limitations period of one year from the date the cause of action accrues. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 340(3); Taylor, 993 F.2d at 711.

4

Because Logan filed this action on May 21, 1993, over a year after he was convicted and sentenced, the district court properly concluded that Logan's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. See Cal.Gov't Code § 945.3; Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

5

Because we conclude that the statute of limitations had run, at the latest, by December 9, 1992, we reject Logan's contention that the action was tolled pursuant to Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 352.1(a). See Elliot, 25 F.3d at 803.[1]

AFFIRMED.[2]

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

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

1

We decline to address Logan's contention that the district court should have imposed sanctions on defendants for withholding of discovery because he raised it for the first time on appeal. See Ravell v. United States, 22 F.3d 960, 962 (9th Cir.1994)

2

Because of our disposition of this appeal, we do not consider the applicability, if any, of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996)