green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
39.4 score
“a consent decree is construed with reference to ordinary contract principles of the state in which the decree is signed.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ebner v. State
a consent decree is construed with reference to ordinary contract principles of the state in which the decree is signed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Su v. United States Postal Service
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir. 2 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tozer v. City of Portland
Time Spent Promoting the Case Contact with the media is work "that attorneys generally do at their own expense." Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 535 (9th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bell v. Williams
Once the moving party meets its burden of 7 documenting its hours and submitting evidence in support of hours worked, “[t]he party opposing 8 the fee application has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district 9 court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the 10 prevailing party in its submitted affidavits.” Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir. 1995), 11 as amended (Aug. 3, 1995) 12 13 DISCUSSION 14 As of the filing of the reply papers, Bell seeks a lodestar of attorneys’ fees in the amount of 15 $…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bio-Synergy Environmental, LLC v. Reynoso Garcia
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534 (9th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Laube v. Desert Fire LLC
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534 (9th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzales v. Burley High School
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 535 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding fee award where the “cumulative effect” of Plaintiffs’ time records allowed the Court to assess the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ time).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness v. City of Sacramento
Billing entries of this 8 nature have been deemed by the Ninth Circuit to be “more than sufficient.” Gates v. 9 Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Walker River Irrigation District
Cf. Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1995).10 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Griffin v. James Gomez
(2×)
“Deference” is particularly “appropriate in this case, as it has been under the supervision of [the same] District Judge . . . and [the] Magistrate Judge . . . since its inception.” Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1995).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce v. County of Orange
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
“The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended in the litigation and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked.” Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534 (9th Cir.1995) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tur v. Youtube, Inc.
Moreover, though YouTube’s privilege concerns are legitimate, see Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 535 (9th Cir.1995), they do not justify a wholesale refusal to provide any records whatsoever.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tur v. Youtube, Inc.
Moreover, though YouTube’s privilege concerns are legitimate, see Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 535 (9th Cir.1995), they do not justify a wholesale refusal to provide any records whatsoever.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
L.H. v. Schwarzenegger
See Armstrong v. Davis, 318 F.3d 965, 971-73 (9th Cir.2003); Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 535 (9th Cir.1995); Hasbrouck v. Texaco, 879 F.2d 632 , 638 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wicker v. Oregon Ex Rel. Bureau of Labor
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995) (“A consent decree is construed with reference to ordinary contract principles of the state in which the decree is signed.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. FMC Corp.
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th *819 Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Fmc Corporation
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fair Housing Council v. PENASQUITOS CASABLANCA CASABLANCA OWNER'S ASSOCIATION
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Nehmer v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
“This court reviews de novo a district court’s interpretation of a consent decree ... but will ‘give deference to the district court’s interpretation based on the court’s extensive oversight of the decree from the commencement of the litigation to the current appeal.’ A court of appeals will uphold a district court’s ‘reasonable’ interpretation of a consent decree.” Nehmer III, 284 F.3d at 1160 (quoting Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530-31 (9th Cir.1995)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Nehmer v. US Department of Veterans
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
“This court reviews de novo a district court’s interpretation of a consent decree . . . but will ‘give deference to the district court’s interpretation based on the court’s extensive oversight of the decree from the commencement of the litigation to the current appeal.’ A court of appeals will uphold a district court’s ‘reasonable’ interpretation of a consent decree.” Neh- mer III, 284 F.3d at 1160 (quoting Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Thorne
Interpretation of a consent decree is a question of law and is therefore reviewed de novo; however, deference is given to the district court’s interpretation “based on the court’s extensive oversight of the decree from the commencement of the litigation to the current appeal.” See Nehmer v. Veterans’ Admin., 284 F.3d 1158 , 1160 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Webster, Mrak & Blumberg v. Albertson's Inc.
(2×)
Where a settlement agreement is incorporated into a comb order, as with a consent decree, the court reviews de novo the district court’s interpretation of the decree, Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995), and defers to the district comb’s factual findings underlying that interpretation unless those findings are clearly erroneous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nehmer v. Veterans' Administration
See, e.g., id. at 1183. 5 The plaintiff class now brings a Motion for Enforcement of the Final Judgment to compel VA, under the Stip. & Order governing the case, to (1) pay retroactive benefits to veterans with prostate cancer whose initial applications for such benefits were denied under valid 1994 regulations; and (2) pay all accrued retroactive benefits owed under the Stip. & Order to the estates of deceased veterans. 1 The lower court upheld plaintiffs' interpretation of the consent decree on both issues, writing that "the VA's position amounts to little more than an expression of its desi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
San Francisco National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. San Francisco Unified School District
Although this court upheld an award of post-judgment fees to plaintiffs in Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 535 (9th Cir.1995), in compensation for filing an amicus brief before a separate court, we did so based on the particular attorney's fee provisions of the consent decree in that case. .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nehmer v. Veterans' Administration of the Government of the United States
This court reviews de novo a district court’s interpretation óf a consent decree, Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995), but will “give deference to the district court’s interpretation based on the court’s extensive oversight of the decree from the commencement of the litigation to the current appeal.” Id.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 2002
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 2002
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
California v. Randtron
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
California v. Randtron
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 31 F.3d 1428 , 1432 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Labor/Community Strategy Center v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 31 F.3d 1428 , 1432 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
California v. Aerojet General Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzales v. Felker
Such work is compensable if it is “reasonably related to compliance and monitoring work,” Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 535 (9th Cir.1995), “useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to a successful outcome,” McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456 , 1462 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U.S. 546, 561 , 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3096 , 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986), or “necessary to protect rights and related to the initial purpose for bringing suit,” White v. Morris, 863 F.Supp. 607, 610 (S.D.Ohio 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gates v. Shinn
(2×)
This is not a holding to be avoided by substituting some unspecific words, like “appropriate,” for others, like “sufficient.” We acknowledge our holding in Gates v. Shinn, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir.1995) that “appropriate psychiatric treatment as medically indicated” is “a sufficiently specific standard with which to judge defendants’ compliance.” Id. at 531.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gates v. Shinn
(2×)
This is not a holding to be avoided by substituting some unspecific words, like "appropriate," for others, like "sufficient." 51 We acknowledge our holding in Gates v. Shinn, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir.1995) that "appropriate psychiatric treatment as medically indicated" is "a sufficiently specific standard with which to judge defendants' compliance." Id. at 531.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert McGRATH, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF NEVADA; And Bill Heafey, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellants
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir.1995); see Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 , 892 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. 1541 , 1545 n. 5, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
K W v. Armstrong
See generally Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 535 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding fee award where the “cumulative effect” of the attorneys’ records allowed the Court to assess the reasonableness of the hours billed).
examined
Cited "see"
Caccamise v. Credit One Bank, N.A.
(4×)
See 12 id. at 8 (citing Sinnett Decl. ¶ 12).
cited
Cited "see"
Haiping Su v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration
See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534 (9th Cir. 1995). 3.
discussed
Cited "see"
Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Napolitano
See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534 (9th Cir.1995) (defendants “urge us to apply a prevailing party standard under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to post-judgment monitoring and compliance work under the consent decree.
cited
Cited "see"
Jeff D. Ex Rel. Belodoff v. Otter
See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 532 (9th Cir.1995) ("[A] specific finding of a past violation is not prerequisite to an injunction preventing a future violation.'').
discussed
Cited "see"
Lozeau v. Lake County, Mont.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jay Lee Gates John Ronald Bertram v. Ron Shinn
See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 285-89 (1989). 5 Third, defendants' challenge to the award of fees for legislative contacts is governed by our decision in Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525 (9th Cir.1995), where we upheld the portion of the district court's fee award pertaining to legislative contacts. 6 Fourth, defendants claim technical violations of FRAP 39 in connection with the district court's award of fees for work done on appeal.
cited
Cited "see"
ca1 1996
See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 961 F.2d 1432 , 1434 (9th Cir.1992).
United States of America, Ex Rel., Harold R. Fine
v.
Chevron Usa, Inc. Bechtel Petroleum Operations, Inc. Williams Brothers Engineering Company, United States of America, Ex Rel., Harold R. Fine v. University of California, and the Board of Regents of the University of California
v.
Chevron Usa, Inc. Bechtel Petroleum Operations, Inc. Williams Brothers Engineering Company, United States of America, Ex Rel., Harold R. Fine v. University of California, and the Board of Regents of the University of California
93-15012.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 8, 1995.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
UNITED STATES of America, ex rel., Plaintiff,
Harold R. FINE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHEVRON USA, INC.; Bechtel Petroleum Operations, Inc.;
Williams Brothers Engineering Company,
Defendants-Appellees.
UNITED STATES of America, ex rel., Plaintiff,
Harold R. FINE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and the Board of Regents of the
University of California, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 93-15012, 93-15728.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
June 8, 1995.
Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge.
[*~535]2
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.