green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
54.7 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2003–2026 · 2 courts ·
…judicial notice may be taken at any time, including on appeal.
at p. 671
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Leroy Carrillo, Jr. v. Philip Montoya
judicial notice may be taken at any time, including on appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Gulley
subject matter jurisdiction may not be conferred on a federal court by stipulation, estoppel, or waiver.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
RCB Bank v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
judicial notice may be taken at any time, including on appeal.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence
the statute was amended in 1968 to' omit the requirement of affirmative state legislative action and to require the consent of the. indian tribe by special election before a state could assume jurisdiction.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence
the statute was amended in 1968 to omit 6 the requirement of affirmative state legislative action and to require the consent of the indian tribe by special election before a state could assume jurisdiction.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Frank McIntyre v. Dennis Fangman
“Judicial notice may be taken at any time, including on appeal.” U.S. v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Concepcion v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Cal. 2006) (“not . . . appropriate for the Court to take notice of disputed matters 10 contained within . . . medical records”) (citing United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th 11 Cir. 1999)). 12 Thus, the facts that Defendants seek to establish by reference to the HUMC memo, the 13 SRSRC memo, and the institutional evaluation are subject to reasonable dispute, and they are 14 strongly disputed in the present case.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Waldo v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust
Evid. 201(b). 71 United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 1999); see Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knight v. Kitchen
Cal. 2006) (finding that an inmate’s medical records are not public records subject to judicial notice (citing United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir. 1999))); Freeman v. Town of Hudson, 714 F.3d 29 . 36 (1st Cir. 2013) (finding that police incident reports and 911 transcripts are not subject to judicial notice and, therefore, not “public records” in the scope of a Rule 12 motion).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Mata-Soto
Although “[j]udicial notice may be taken at any time, including on appeal,” United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 1999), Mr. Mata-Soto’s request is not an appropriate one for judicial notice, see id. (“A fact may be judicially noticed if it is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is either ‘(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’” (quoting Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia-Rodriguez v. Gomm
Plaintiffs also cite United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir.1999), a case where the defendants were not given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(e), to show that a court could not take judicial notice of a government employee’s affidavit because the source’s accuracy was not beyond reasonable question.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ross v. Rothstein
R.Evid. 201(b) and citing United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir.1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anderson
Although "[cjhal-lenges to a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time,” United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668 (10th Cir. 1999), we need not reach this issue without the benefit of briefing from the parties because, as we explain below, the district court lacked statutory authority to order restitution for a separate reason.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bruno v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc.
The Apex gas station is located within two miles of where appellant lived at the time of the attacks. " ‘Judicial notice may be taken at any time, including on appeal.' ” Robert Siegel, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 892 A.2d 387 , 395 n. 11 (D.C.2006) (quoting United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999)). "'A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it *716 is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reaso…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kelly
Furthermore, “[w]hether an offense occurred within particular geo *1236 graphical boundaries is an appropriate subject for judicial notice.” United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999); see Byrne, 171 F.3d at 1233 n. 1 (taking judicial notice that the “city of Clovis is located within Curry County, New Mexico,” and stating that defendant’s venue objection, which was “[presumably” based on the fact that the indictment referred to Curry County, New Mexico rather than the city of Clovis, “borders on the frivolous”); 2 Wright, supra, § 307, at 347-48 (noting that �…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia v. Gutierrez
See Rule 1-012(H)(3) NMRA; see, e.g., Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 133, 138 , 899 P.2d 576, 581 (1995) (“It is well settled that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived[.]”); Spingola v. Spingola, 93 N.M. 598, 600 , 603 P.2d 708, 710 (1979) (stating that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be “extended by agreement of the parties”); United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668 (10th Cir.1999) (stating that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred “by stipulation, estoppel, or waiver”). {14} However, it appears that in Lonewolf v. Lonewolf, 99 N.M. 300 , 657 P.2d 627…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lamy
Indian country by definition includes “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government.” United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 669 (10th Cir.1999) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (a)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Siegel, Inc. v. District of Columbia
"Judicial notice may be taken at any time, including on appeal." United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Frank Nolte v. Capital One Financial Corporation
Evid. 201(b) (2004); see also, United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir.1999); Taylor v. Charter Med.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nolte v. Capital One Financial Corp.
Evid. 201(b) (2004); see also, United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir.1999); Taylor v. Charter Med.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher v. Aguigui
"Judicial notice may be taken at any time, including on appeal." United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999); see also Ieradi v. Mylan Lab.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Denius, Ronald C. v. Dunlap Wayne
Fed.R.Evid. 201(f); United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999); Green v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, 699 F.2d 364, 369 (7th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Denius v. Dunlap
Fed.R.Evid. 201(f); United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999); Green v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, 699 F.2d 364, 369 (7th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McElroy
However, the government also recognizes that “[challenges to a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time,” and that “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be conferred on a federal court by stipulation, estoppel, or waiver.” United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668 (10th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McKinney
United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Manygoats v. Cameron Trading Post
In United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666 at 671-672 (10th Cir. 1999), the court approved the use of judicial notice of government maps to show the boundaries of land in Ignacio, Colorado as being within “Indian country” for purposes of criminal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act.
cited
Cited "see"
Samra v. Fandango II, LLC
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671-72 (10th Cir. 1999); Dixon v. Stone Truck Line, Inc., 2:19-cv-000945, 2020 U.S. Dist.
cited
Cited "see"
Tenezaca-Dutan v. Barr
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 1999). 9 III.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Martinez
See United States v. Burch , 169 F.3d 666 , 671-72 (10th Cir.1999) ("Whether an offense occurred within particular geographical boundaries is an appropriate subject for judicial notice."); see also Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sabillon-Umana
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999); Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Winzler v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999) (judicial notice may be taken for the first time on appeal); Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 , 1020 n. 11 (10th Cir.2011) (encouraging parties to alert this court to developments after a district court’s judgment that may render the case moot on appeal); Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723-24 (8th Cir.2005) (holding case prudentially moot for the first time on appeal and vacating a district court determination on the merits); Spangler, 832 F.2d at 298-99 (same); United States v. (Under Seal), 757 F.2d 600, 601, 604 (4th Cir.1985) (sam…
cited
Cited "see"
Walker v. Woodford
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir.1999) (not proper for court to take judicial notice of disputed facts contained in hearsay document).
cited
Cited "see"
Castor v. United States Parole Commission
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668 (10th Cir.1999) (§ 2241 petition construed as motion filed under § 2255).
cited
Cited "see"
Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Bishope Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County Of Inyo
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999). 43 We affirm the District Court with respect to its ruling that California was not required to enact enabling legislation before Public Law 280 became effective. 44 V.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. McBride
See generally United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668 (10th Cir.1999) (“Challenges to a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Patterson v. Dahlsten Truck Line, Inc.
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir.1999) (“[M]aps are generally an acceptable source for taking judicial notice.”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Blatter
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668 (10th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Amanatullah v. Colorado Board of Medical Examiners
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir.1999) (judicial notice may be taken for the first time on appeal). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
No. 98-1314
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 1999) (judicial notice may be taken for the first time on appeal). 2 The Colorado Board is divided into two panels, the inquiry panel, Panel A in this case, and the hearings panel, Panel B.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Timothy Byrne
See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 671-72 (10th Cir.1999) (asserting that judicial notice may be taken for the first time on appeal and that "[wjhether an offense occurred within particular geographic boundaries is an appropriate subject for judicial notice”). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Lambert v. Ackerley
(2×)
See Lambert v. Ackerly, 156 F.3d 1018 (1998), withdrawn and reh’g en banc granted, 169 F.3d 666 (9th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. United States
See, e.g., United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668 (10th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Arocho v. S. Nafzinger
See, e.g., United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lozano v. Ashcroft
Judicial notice may be employed only if the facts in question are “not subject to reasonable dispute;” if, instead, they are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); see also United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir.1999) (court would not take judicial notice of facts from photocopy and hearsay affidavit).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Valerio v. Putnam Associates
Lambert v. Genesee Hospital, 10 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Lambert v. Ackerly, 156 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 1998), withdrawn and reh'g granted, 169 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Valerio v. Putnam Associates
Lambert v. Genesee Hospital, 10 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Lambert v. Ackerly, 156 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 1998), withdrawn and reh'g granted, 169 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Laura Lambert Esther Ackley Steve Belling Pat Cooke Letitia Selk Chuck Viltz, Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
Barry Ackerly, William Ackerly Seattle Supersonics Inc., a Former Washington Corporation Full House Sports & Entertainment Inc., a Washington Corporation Ssi Sports Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
v.
Barry Ackerly, William Ackerly Seattle Supersonics Inc., a Former Washington Corporation Full House Sports & Entertainment Inc., a Washington Corporation Ssi Sports Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
96-36017.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 9, 1999.
169 F.3d 666
Published
137 Lab.Cas. P 33,846, 5 Wage & Hour Cas.2d
(BNA) 677
Laura LAMBERT; Esther Ackley; Steve Belling; Pat Cooke;
Letitia Selk; Chuck Viltz, Plaintiffs-Appellees-
Cross-Appellants,
v.
Barry ACKERLY, William Ackerly; Seattle Supersonics Inc., a
former Washington corporation; Full House Sports &
Entertainment Inc., a Washington corporation; SSI Sports
Inc., a Washington corporation, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
Nos. 96-36017, 96-36266, 96-36267.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
March 9, 1999.
Before: HUG, Chief Judge.
ORDER
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court,[1] it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion, Lambert v. Ackerly, 156 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.1998), is withdrawn.
1
Judge McKeown was recused