Kimball v. Callahan (1979)
green
· 216 citation events
across 26 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197920022026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Skokomish Indian Tribe, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe in Its Own Capacity as a Class Representative and… (2005)
Kimball II, 590 F.2d at 772.
green
United States v. Perry Von Murdock (1997)
Id. at 772.
green
Patrick James Jeffries v. Tana Wood, Superintendent (1997)
An appellate court cannot efficiently perform its duty to provide expeditious justice to all if a question once considered and decided by it were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal.” Kimball, 590 F.2d at 771 (quotations omitted).
quotations omitted
green
Maria Gonzalez v. State of Arizona (2010)
These are paramount concerns to sound judicial administration, as “[a]n appellate court cannot efficiently perform its duty to provide expeditious justice to all if a question once considered and decided by it were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subse- quent appeal.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir. 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green
Skokomish Indian v. Tacoma Public Utilities (2005)
SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE v. UNITED STATES 6187 vindicate communal, rather than individual rights, they do not have cognizable section 1983 claims against the City or TPU.8 Kimball II further limited Kimball I by noting that “the court’s state- ment [in Kimball I] that treaty rights to hunt and fish are rights of the indi- vidual Indian must be understood within the context of the two cases cited in its support.” Id. at 772-73 (footnote omitted).
footnote omitted
green
Skokomish Indian v. Tacoma Public Utilities (2005)
Kimball II further limited Kimball I by noting that "the court's statement [in Kimball J] that treaty rights to hunt and fish are rights of the individual Indian must be understood within the context of the two cases cited in its support.” Id. at 772-73 (footnote omitted).
footnote omitted
green
Russell Coleman v. Arthur Calderon, Warden (2000)
An appellate court cannot efficiently perform its duty to provide expeditious justice to all if a question once considered and decided by it were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.1979) (citing White v. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428, 431 (5th Cir.1967)).
Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979); 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.
green
Carl Wesley Thomas v. Paul Bible (1993)
Moreover, " 'under "law of the case" doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.' " Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979)).
green
United States v. Dorothy Silverman, Administratrix, Estate of Fred R. Silverman, Deceased (1988)
Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir.1988); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979).
green
Kami Etemadi v. Merrick Garland (2021)
Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir. 1979); cf. United States v. Hollis, 506 F.3d 415, 421 (5th Cir. 2007) (“On this second appeal, we are bound by the law of the case rule: ordinarily an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on subsequent appeal.” (internal quotation marks and modifications omitted)).
green
United States v. Jeffrey Spanier (2018)
However, reexamination is permitted if “controlling authority has made a contrary decision of law applicable to such issues.” Id. (quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771-72 (9th Cir. 1979)).
green
American National Property & Casualty Co. v. Camp (2016)
“Under the law of the case doctrine, ‘one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.’ ” Disimone v. Browner, 121 F.3d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir. 1979)).
green
Klamath Claims Committee v. United States (2013)
See Kimball v. Callahan, 493 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1019 , 95 S.Ct. 491 , 42 L.Ed.2d 292 (1974) (explaining that the Tribes’s hunting, fishing, and water rights survived the Termination Act); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1979) (discussing which members of the Tribes could exercise tribal fishing rights after termination); United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394, 1418 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1252 , 104 S.Ct. 3536 , …
discussing which members of the Tribes could exercise tribal fishing rights after termination
green
Gonzalez v. Arizona (2010)
These are paramount concerns to sound judicial administration, as "[a]n appellate court cannot efficiently perform its duty to provide expeditious justice to all if a question once considered and decided by it were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal." Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).
green
Hongsermeier v. Commissioner (2010)
Under the law of the case doctrine, “one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.1979).
green
United States v. Lewis (2010)
“The law of the case doctrine states that the decision of an appellate court on a legal issue must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same ease.” Caldwell v. Unified Capital Corp. (In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc.), 77 F.3d 278, 281 (9th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same cas…
green
Skokomish Indian Tribe, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe in Its Own Capacity as a Class Representative and… (2005)
Kimball II further limited Kimball I by noting that "the court's statement [in Kimball I ] that treaty rights to hunt and fish are rights of the individual Indian must be understood within the context of the two cases cited in its support." Id. at 772-73 (footnote omitted).
footnote omitted
green
Schudel v. General Electric Co. (2002)
We conclude that this issue has already been decided against Williams and we decline to reconsider it here. “[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 .
green
Lester G. Adams and Jean D. Adams, Individually and as Trustees of the 1984 Living Trust v. United States (2001)
See In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc., 77 F.3d 278, 281 (9th Cir.1996) (“The law of the case doctrine states that the decision of an appellate court on a legal issue must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same case.”) (quotations omitted); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.1979) (“[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in t…
The “law of the case” doctrine provides that “ ‘one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.’” Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.1979)); see also United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997).
green
United States v. Murdock (1997)
The Klamaths still maintain a tribal constitution and tribal government, which among other things establishes criteria for membership in the Tribe.” Id. at 775-76 (footnote omitted).3 In the Felter cases, both the district court and this court considered the operation and effect of the Ute Termination Act on hunting and fishing rights in light of Menominee Tribe and the Kimball cases.
footnote omitted
green
Disimone v. Browner (1997)
A. Law of the Case Under the law of the case doctrine, “one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.1979).
green
United States v. Kenneth Steven Bailey (1997)
In re Rainbow Magazine, 77 F.3d 278, 281 (9th Cir.1996); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979). 4 Bailey also challenges the district court's enhancement of his sentence for the amount of loss under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1.
green
Consolidation Coal Co. v. McMahon (1996)
"Under the ‘law of the case’ doctrine, a court is ordinarily precluded from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher court, in the same case.” Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Maybusher, 735 F.2d 366, 370 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1110 , 105 S.Ct. 790 , 83 L.Ed.2d 783 (1985); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d…
green
Consolidation Coal Company v. Mcmahon (1996)
"Under the 'law of the case' doctrine, a court is ordinarily precluded from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher court, in the same case." Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Maybusher, 735 F.2d 366, 370 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1110 , 105 S.Ct. 790 , 83 L.Ed.2d 783 (1985); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d…
Id. at 1320 (quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979)) (citations omitted).
green
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9002, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,739 Sinaloa Lake Owners Association Robert A. Ain Di… (1995)
Under the discretionary doctrine of the law of the case, "one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case." Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979)).
green
Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley (1995)
Under the discretionary doctrine of the law of the case, “one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979)).
Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.) (explaining the law of the case doctrine), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 (1979).
See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771-72 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979).
green
United States v. Jose Marino-Biarreal (1992)
See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979).
green
Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey and Jerry Howard, Knowlton Merritt v. John E. MacKey Steve Vincent (1991)
We agree with the district court that the ruling in Merritt I is the law of the case and decline to address the merits of qualified immunity, except as necessary to determine whether we ought to leave the matter as settled by Merritt I . “[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), …
green
Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1991)
Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979).
green
John L. Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., and Air Line Pilots Association, International, John L. Dean v. T… (1991)
Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979).
green
Duran v. City Of Douglas (1990)
Under the law of the case doctrine, "one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case." Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 770 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979).
green
Duran v. City of Douglas (1990)
Under the law of the case doctrine, “one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 770 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979).
green
Nos. 87-2042, 87-2191 (1988)
Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391 , 392 (9th Cir.1981) (citing Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 772 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979); White v. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428 (5th Cir.1967)).
United States v. Garcia, 77 F.3d 274, 276 (9th Cir.1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir.1995); Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Miller, 822 F.2d at 832; Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.1979).
green
Nenana Fuel Co. v. Native Village of Venetie (1992)
L.Ed.2d 300] (1975); Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 [ 88 S.Ct. 1705 , 20 L.Ed.2d 697 ] (1968); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 776-77 (9th Cir.), cert, denied 444 U.S. 826 [ 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 ] (1979).
green
In re: Hermann Muennichow (2025)
Money Ctr., Inc.), 392 B.R. 814, 832 (9th Cir. BAP 2008) (citing Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am., 902 F.2d 703, 715 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir. 1979) (“[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.”).
“[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.”
green
In re: Melanio L. Valdellon AND Ellen C. Valdellon (2024)
Money Ctr., Inc.), 392 B.R. 814, 832 (9th Cir. BAP 2008) (citing Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am., 902 F.2d 703, 715 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768 , 771 (9th Cir. 1979) (“[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.”).
“[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.”
green
In re: Daniela M Farina (2023)
Money Ctr., Inc.), 392 B.R. 814, 832 (9th Cir. BAP 2008) (citing Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am., 902 F.2d 703, 715 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir. 1979) (“[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.”).
“[U]nder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.”
Individual Indians, however, enjoy a right of user in the tribe’s hunting and fishing rights.” (citation omitted)); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 773 (9th Cir. 1979) (“an individual Indian enjoys a right of user in tribal property derived from the legal or equitable property right of the Tribe of which he is a member”); see also United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 , 738 n.4 (1986) (citing Winans, Kimball, and Felter for the proposition that “[s]uch treaty rights can be …
“an individual Indian enjoys a right of user in tribal property derived from the legal or equitable property right of the Tribe of which he is a member”
green
Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd v. Chad T. Wolf (2022)
“Law of the case rules are founded upon ‘the sound public policy that 22 litigation must come to an end. . . . [A] court cannot efficiently perform its duty to 23 provide expeditious justice to all if a question once considered and decided by it were 24 to be litigated anew in the same case . . . .’” Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484 , 1489 25 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir. 1979)), 26 overruled on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Arizona,…
green
Andrews Farms v. Calcot, Ltd. (2010)
“Under the ‘law of the case’ doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979)).
green
United States v. Fox (2007)
Individual Indians, however, enjoy a right of user in the tribe’s hunting rights.”); Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d at 773 (“[I]t is clear that an individual Indian enjoys a right of user in tribal property derived from the legal or equitable property right of the Tribe.... ”); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d at 1292 (stating that hunting rights belong to the tribe as a whole, not to any one individual).
“[I]t is clear that an individual Indian enjoys a right of user in tribal property derived from the legal or equitable property right of the Tribe.... ”
green
Ellett v. Goldberg (In Re Ellett) (2003)
A prior decision of a legal issue will be followed unless: (1) “the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different,” (2) “controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues,” or (3) “the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771-72 (9th Cir.1979) (citing White v. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428, 431-32 (5th Cir.1967)).
green
Colin v. Lampert (2002)
Law of the case is not, however, an “inexorable command.” Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771-72 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979).
green
In re Coby (1993)
The Ninth Circuit has recognized that a prior decision should not be followed if “controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir.1986), quoting Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771-772 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826 , 100 S.Ct. 49 , 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979).