Krain v. Gislason, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Krain v. Gislason, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bowyer v. Ducey (azd, 2020-12-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Bowyer v. Ducey
D. Ariz. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Massey v. Coon, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming dismissal 4 where “on its face the complaint states a claim under the due process and equal protection 5 clauses of the Constitution, [but] these constitutional claims are entirely based on the 6 failure of defendants to conform to state law”); see also Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 90 (“[W]hen 7 a plaintiff alleges that a state official has violated state law” and “when a federal court 8 instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law, this conflicts directly 9 with the principles of federalism that underlie…
cited Cited "see" Arkla Exploration Co. v. Norwest Bank of Minneapolis, National Ass'n
10th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re North Side Lumber Co., 83 B.R. 735, 737 (9th Cir. BAP 1987), aff'd, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see" Arkla Exploration Company v. Norwest Bank Of Minneapolis, National Association
10th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re North Side Lumber Co., 83 B.R. 735, 737 (9th Cir. BAP 1987), aff'd, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir.1988). 11 Under Oklahoma law, the task of interpreting the Lien Act begins with the plain language of the statute.
discussed Cited "see" LTV Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See, In re North Side Lumber Co., 59 B.R. 917 (Bankr.D.Or.1986), aff'd, 83 B.R. 735 (9th Cir.B.A.P.1987), and aff'd, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir.1988); In re Cummings Mkt., Inc., 53 B.R. 224 (Bankr.D.Vt.1985); In re New England Carpet Co., 26 B.R. 934 (Bankr.D.Vt.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii
9th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Indeed, a “pro se litigant [is] entitled to procedural protections, including [the] right to amend [a] complaint unless futile.” Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1136 (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also Houghton v. South, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1988) (unpublished) (holding that the “policy of liberality under Rule 15 for pro se plaintiffs” means “the district court should have allowed Houghton to supplement his complaint . . . on remand from the first appeal” to “allege[] an ‘as applied’ challenge”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re: John Badea
9th Cir. BAP · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also In re N. Side Lumber Co., 865 F.2d 264, at *1 ("Federal courts have interpreted [the] language of [§ 362(b)(3) and § 546(b)] as excepting from [§]362(a)(4)'s automatic stay of any act of perfection which relates back to a prior act of creation, and which is therefore effective against an interest in the property acquired in the interim.").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Krain
v.
Gislason
36-3_20.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 25, 1988.
865 F.2d 264
Unpublished

865 F.2d 264

Unpublished Disposition

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.

Lawrence S. KRAIN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
I. Lee GISLASON, M.D.; John Trotter; Marsha Miller, Esq.;
Keith Monroe, Esq.; Kenneth Lavin, M.D.; Kaushal
K. Sharma, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-5572.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted[*] Nov. 4, 1988.
Decided Nov. 25, 1988.

Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, WILLIAM A. NORRIS and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.

1

ORDER[**]

2

We affirm the district court's Order dismissing the complaint and action as to all defendants for the reasons set forth in the magistrate's Final Report and Recommendations, as adopted by the district court.

3

We reject Krain's claim that the district court's dismissal without leave to amend violated his due process rights. Krain had ample notice of the deficiencies in his complaint and adequate opportunity to request leave to amend.

4

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 36-3