green
Positive treatment
Hot · 82 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.6 score
“the degree to which a court must abrogate its deference to the administrator depends on the extent to which the challenging party has succeeded in substantiating its claims that there is a conflict.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Revels v. Standard Insurance Company
the degree to which a court must abrogate its deference to the administrator depends on the extent to which the challenging party has succeeded in substantiating its claims that there is a conflict.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lumumba v. Pierce County
See Agyeman v. Corr. 7 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 8 unusually complex due to case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied sub nom., Gerber 9 v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
D'allo v. Modrijan
See Agyeman v. Corr. 15 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 16 unusually complex due to case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied sub nom., Gerber 17 v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
D'allo v. Modrijan
See Agyeman v. Corr. 11 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 12 unusually complex due to case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied sub nom., Gerber 13 v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bailey v. American Research Bureau
See Agyeman v. Corr. 21 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 22 unusually complex due to the relevant case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied sub 23 nom., Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Monts
See Agyeman v. Corr. 21 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 22 unusually complex due to the relevant case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied sub 23 nom., Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Miller v. Thurston County
See Agyeman v. Corr. 18 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 19 unusually complex due to case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied 545 U.S. 1128 . 20 While any litigant “certainly would be better served with the assistance of counsel,” a litigant 21 requesting counsel must show more than that benefit.
discussed
Cited "see"
Miller v. Thurston County
See Agyeman v. Corr. 22 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 23 unusually complex due to case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied 545 U.S. 1128 . 24 1 While any litigant “certainly would be better served with the assistance of counsel,” a litigant 2 requesting counsel must show more than that benefit.
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Monts
See Agyeman v. Corr. 13 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 14 unusually complex due to the relevant case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied sub 15 nom., Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Webb v. NaphCare Inc
See Agyeman v. Corr Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103–04 18 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring appointment of counsel where a case was unusually complex due to 19 case law as well as litigant’s personal circumstances), cert. denied 545 U.S. 1128 ; see also Tilei 20 v. McGuinness, 642 Fed.Appx. 719, 722 (9th Cir. 2016) (appointing counsel where, among other 21 reasons, litigant likely needed expert testimony to prevail on deliberate indifference claim). 22 Plaintiff Webb has been granted leave to file this case in forma pauperis, as Plaintiff did 23 not appear to have sufficient funds to pay the c…
discussed
Cited "see"
(PC) Hatcher v. Junes
See Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 698-99 (9th Cir.) (en banc) 19 (Heck does not bar excessive force claims arising from conduct distinguishable from the facts 20 giving rise to plaintiff’s conviction), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).6 Where Heck would not 21 necessarily bar a claim after conviction, the reasoning of Wallace does not support a stay pending 22 prosecution. 23 //// 24 6 See also, Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2012) (police 25 excessive force claim not Heck-barred if “distinct temporally or spatially from the factual basis 26 for the…
cited
Cited "see"
Price v. City of Sutherlin
See Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 700 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 , 125 S.Ct. 2938 , 162 L.Ed.2d 866 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Teicher v. REGENCE HEALTH AND LIFE INS. CO.
See 394 F.3d 262, 266 (5th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 , 125 S.Ct. 2941 , 162 L.Ed.2d 867 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David A.
See United States v. Brandon P., 387 F.3d 969, 972-74 (9th Cir.2004), ce rt. denied, — U.S. ---, 125 S.Ct. 2936 , 162 L.Ed.2d 871 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. A.
See United States v. Brandon P., 387 F.3d 969, 972-74 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2936 , 162 L.Ed.2d 871 (2005). 9 This case, however, is distinguishable from Brandon P. because David A. never moved to have the charge against him dismissed based upon the alleged violation of his § 5306 speedy trial rights.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jorge Enrique Serrano Robles Senior v. County of Los Angeles
See Mattos, 661 F.3d at 441 ; see also Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 , 19 702 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (finding whether plaintiff posed a threat to be the most 20 important of the Graham factors), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Xavier Lopez v. City of Riverside
See Mattos, 661 F.3d 12 at 441; see also Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 702 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) 13 (finding whether plaintiff posed a threat to be the most important of the Graham 14 factors), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Luke Carlson v. City of Redondo Beach
See Mattos, 661 F.3d at 441 ; see also Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 , 8 702 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005) (finding whether 9 plaintiff posed a threat to be the most important of the Graham factors). 10 Additionally, Defendants cite no evidence to support their position as to the third 11 Graham factor: whether Carlson was actively resisting, or attempting to evade, arrest. 12 i. Whether the Crime was Severe 13 In this case, the parties factually dispute what crime was at issue when the 14 Crespin and Knox used deadly force against Carlson.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Devon King v. City of Fontana
See Mattos, 661 F.3d at 441 ; see also Smith v. City of Hemet, 8 394 F.3d 689, 702 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005) 9 (finding whether plaintiff posed a threat to be the most important of the Graham 10 factors). 11 First, the parties dispute whether Tusant should have realized King was 12 unarmed when he got up to run away the second time.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clinton Forbel Thinn v. J. Williams
However, “a plaintiff's allegation of excessive force by a police officer is not 21 barred by Heck if the officer's conduct is ‘distinct temporally or spatially from the factual basis 22 for the [plaintiff's] conviction.’” Id. (citations omitted); see also Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 23 F.3d 689, 699 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miniace v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n
Compare Teeter v. Supplemental Pension Plan of Consolidated Rail Corp., 705 F.Supp. 1089, 1096 (E.D.Pa.1989) (finding that plan administrator’s failure to consider three affidavits that were not before it until after the final appeal constituted a due process violation), with Banuelos v. Construction Laborers’ Trust Funds for S. Calif., 382 F.3d 897, 904 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied,-U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2936 , 162 L.Ed.2d 866 (2005)("We have clearly established that the abuse of discretion standard permits the district court to 'review only the evidence presented to the [plan] trustees.' ”…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wright Electric, Inc.
v.
Ouellette
v.
Ouellette
No. 04-1230.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 20, 2005.
Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.