James Urso v. City of Ridgecrest Randy Narramore, Police Chief Ronald Strand, Officer Brian Sandrini, Officer, 131 F.3d 150 (9th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
James Urso v. City of Ridgecrest Randy Narramore, Police Chief Ronald Strand, Officer Brian Sandrini, Officer, 131 F.3d 150 (9th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a non-erisa plan is not converted into an erisa plan merely because an employer also sponsors a separate 5 benefits plan subject to erisa.”
48 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Herbert A. SLAMEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee (ca11, 1999-02-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Herbert A. SLAMEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a non-erisa plan is not converted into an erisa plan merely because an employer also sponsors a separate benefits plan subject to erisa.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Slamen v. Paul Revere Life Ins.
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a non-erisa plan is not converted into an erisa plan merely because an employer also sponsors a separate 5 benefits plan subject to erisa.
cited Cited "see" Slamen v. Paul Revere Life Ins.
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Zeiger v. Zeiger, 131 F.3d 150 (9th Cir.1997) ("A non-ERISA plan is not converted into an ERISA plan merely because an employer also sponsors a separate benefits plan subject to ERISA.").
cited Cited "see, e.g." Stenger v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance
E.D. Wis. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Zeiger v. Zeiger, 131 F.3d 150 (9th Cir.1997) (“A non-ERISA plan is not converted into an ERISA plan merely because an employer also sponsors a separate benefits plan subject to ERISA”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Urso
v.
City of Ridgecrest Randy Narramore, Police Chief Ronald Strand, Officer Brian Sandrini, Officer
96-15379.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 19, 1997.
131 F.3d 150
Unpublished
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #20,145 of 633,719
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (2)

131 F.3d 150

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.
James URSO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF RIDGECREST; Randy Narramore, Police Chief; Ronald
Strand, Officer; Brian Sandrini, Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-15379.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 17, 1997.[**]
Decided Nov. 19, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. CV-94-05894-OWW; Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, PREGERSON and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[*]

2

James R. Urso appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Ridgecrest and police officers in Urso's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 police misconduct action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 631 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.

3

Because Urso has failed to present on appeal any facts or legal argument regarding error by the district court, we deem Urso's claims abandoned. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(4), (6); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues not argued in opening brief are deemed abandoned), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 49 (1997); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1993) (same holding in pro se appeal). We conclude that our refusal to review Urso's abandoned claims will not result in manifest injustice. See id.

4

AFFIRMED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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