green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
45.3 score
“the officer should request that the applicant provide evidence that the court relied on the relevant state law to make the findings. this requirement can be met if the petitioner submits supplemental evidence ....”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
J.L. v. Cissna
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the officer should request that the applicant provide evidence that the court relied on the relevant state law to make the findings. this requirement can be met if the petitioner submits supplemental evidence ....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Apple Inc. v. Squires
See also Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2010); Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 1987); National Mining Association, 758 F.3d at 251 ; Syncor International Corp. v. Shalala, 127 F.3d 90, 94 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Apple Inc. v. Iancu
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). 18 Similarly, under Ninth Circuit law, a general statement of policy (1) must “operate only 19 prospectively,” and (2) “must not establish a binding norm or be finally determinative of the issues 20 or rights . . . but must instead leave [agency] officials free to consider the individual facts in the 21 various cases that arise.” Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal 22 quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Gill v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 913 F.3d 1179 , 1186 23 (9th Cir. 2019) (“The critical factor to determ…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority v. Biden
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Neither of these types of rulemaking requires adherence to notice-and-comment procedures. 5 U.S.C. § 553 (b)(3)(A). 194 Docket 60 at 32–35. 195 Docket 60 at 33 (first citing Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 1987); then citing Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 924 F.3d 684, 702 (4th Cir. 2019); and then citing Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1021 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. James D. Paulson
Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Mada–Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kollasoft Incorporated v. Cuccinelli
Mining Cong. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 995 F.2d 1106 , 1109 (D.C. 14 Cir. 1993)). 15 The Ninth Circuit has also provided guidance for determining whether an agency’s 16 purported “general statement of policy,” in actuality, constitutes a new legislative rule. 17 “The critical factor to determine whether a directive announcing a new policy constitutes 18 a rule or a general statement of policy is the extent to which the challenged [directive] 19 leaves the agency, or its implementing official, free to exercise discretion to follow, or not 20 to follow, the [announced] policy in an…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland SEC.
(3×)
Cir. 1987), and Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir. 1987)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Innovation Law Lab v. Kevin McAleenan
See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476, 507 (9th Cir. 2018); Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wiley Gill v. DOJ
Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 1987).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Uc Regents v. Usdhs
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
“The critical factor to determine whether a directive announcing a new policy constitutes a rule or a general statement of policy is the extent to which the challenged [directive] leaves the agency, or its implementing official, free to exercise discretion to follow, or not to follow, the [announced] policy in an individual case.” Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 1987) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
"To qualify as a general statement of policy ... a directive must not establish a binding norm and must leave agency officials free to consider the individual facts in the various cases that arise and to exercise discretion." Id. at 1015 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 1013 ("The critical factor to determine whether a directive announcing a new policy constitutes a rule or a general statement of policy is the extent to which the challenged [directive] leaves the agency, or its implementing official, free to *513 exercise discretion to follow, or not to follow, the [announce…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
W. Watersheds Project v. Zinke
(2×)
Such policies also "serve to educate and provide direction to the agency's personnel in the field, who are required to implement its policies and exercise its discretionary power in specific cases." Id. at 1013 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alec Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC
If an agency issues a directive that “establishes a binding norm that so fills out the statutory scheme that upon application one need only determine whether a given case is within the rule’s criterion, it effectively replaces agency discretion with a new binding rule of substantive law.” Mada-Luna, 813 F.2d at 1014 (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. & Janet Napolitano v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. & Kirstjen Nielsen
(2×)
Such policies also "serve to educate and provide direction to the agency's personnel in the field, who are required to implement its policies and exercise its discretionary power in specific cases." Id. at 1013 (quotes and citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gill v. Department of Justice
Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013-14 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeño Indians v. Jewell
Even assuming the BIA has a “policy” of not funding law enforcement in Public Law 280 states, it is a “general statement of policy” because it “merely provides guidance to agency officials in exercising their discretionary powers while preserving their flexibility and their opportunity to make ‘individualized determination[s].’ ” Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir.1987) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sacora v. Thomas
Colwell, 558 F.3d at 1124 (quoting Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013-14 (9th Cir.1987)) (all alterations but the second and the last in the original) (inter *1070 nal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration
Cf. Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013-14 (9th Cir.1987) (distinguishing a substantive rule from a “general statement of policy,” and stating that “parties can challenge the policy determinations made by the agency only if and when the directive has been applied specifically to them”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Colwell v. Department of Health and Human Services
In contrast, to the extent that the direc- tive “narrowly limits administrative discretion” or establishes a “binding norm” that “so fills out the statutory scheme that upon application one need only determine whether a given case is within the rule’s criterion,” it effectively replaces agency discretion with a new “binding rule of substantial law.” Id. at 1013-14 (emphasis in original); see also Municipality of Anchorage v. United States, 980 F.2d 1320, 1324-25 (9th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Colwell v. Department of Health and Human Services
In contrast, to the extent that the directive “narrowly limits administrative discretion” or establishes a “binding norm” that “so fills out the statutory scheme that upon application one need only determine whether a given case is within the rule’s criterion,” it effectively replaces agency discretion with a new “binding rule of substantial law.” Id. at 1013-14 (emphasis in original); see also Municipality of Anchorage v. United States, 980 F.2d 1320, 1324-25 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Com'n
Petitioners argue that the decisions in CLI 03-01 and PFS amount to the announcement "of a general policy of refusing to consider the environmental impacts of terrorist attacks in Environmental Impact Statements." Petitioners rely on Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir.1987) to claim that this policy depends on factual determinations not found subsequent to an evidentiary proceeding, and constitutes a "binding substantive norm," the promulgation of which, without a public hearing, violates the APA notice and comment provisions contained in 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 (b), (c). 7 The f…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Petitioners argue that the decisions in CLI 03-01 and PFS amount to the announcement “of a general policy of refusing to consider the environmental impacts of terrorist attacks in Environmental Impact Statements.” Petitioners rely on Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir.1987) to claim that this policy depends on factual determinations not found subsequent to an evidentiary proceeding, and constitutes a “binding substantive norm,” the promulgation of which, without a public hearing, violates the APA notice and comment provisions contained in 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 (b), (c).…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala
Regulatory Admin., 822 F.2d 1105, 1110 (D.C.Cir.1987); Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir.1987) (“To the *173 extent that the directive merely provides guidance to agency officials in exercising their discretionary powers while preserving their flexibility and their opportunity to make individualized determination[s], it constitutes a general statement of policy”); accord Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 716 F.2d 1369, 1377 (11th Cir.1983) (“As long as the agency remains free to consider the individual facts in the various cases that arise, then the agency ac…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance v. Babbitt
Lake Mohave, 78 F.3d at 1369 (quoting Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barahona-Gomez v. Reno
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“When a federal agency issues a directive concerning the future exercise of its discretionary power, for purposes of APA section 553, its directive will either constitute a substantive rule, for which notice-and-comment procedures are required, or a general statement of policy, for which they are not.” Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 1999
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
"When a federal agency issues a directive concerning the future exercise of its discretionary power, for purposes of APA section 553, its directive will either constitute a substantive rule, for which notice-and-comment procedures are required, or a general statement of policy, for which they are not." Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lake Mohave Boat Owners Association v. National Park Service
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
All other agency records (apart from those exempt under § 552(b), concerning, e.g., national security, personnel matters, and trade secrets) are to be made available to any party who requests and reasonably describes the material. 32 "[A]n individual may not raise an FOIA claim based on an agency's failure to publish a rule or regulation, unless he makes an 'initial showing' that 'he was adversely affected by the lack of publication....' " Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 1995
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
All other agency records (apart from those exempt under Sec. 552(b), concerning, e.g., national security, personnel matters, and trade secrets) are to be made available to any party who requests and reasonably describes the material. 35 "[A]n individual may not raise an FOIA claim based on an agency's failure to publish a rule or regulation, unless he makes an 'initial showing' that 'he was adversely affected by the lack of publication....' " Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lake Mohave Boat Owners Ass'n v. National Park Service
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
All other agency records (apart from those exempt under § 552(b), concerning, e.g., national security, personnel matters, and trade secrets) are to be made available to any party who requests and reasonably describes the material. “[A]n individual may not raise an FOIA claim based on an agency’s failure to publish a rule or regulation, unless he makes an ‘initial showing’ that ‘he was adversely affected by the lack of publication_’” Mada- Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lake Mohave Boat Owners Ass'n v. National Park Service
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
All other agency records (apart from those exempt under § 552(b), concerning, e.g., national security, personnel matters, and trade secrets) are to be made available to any party who requests and reasonably describes the material. “[A]n individual may not raise an FOIA claim based on an agency’s failure to publish a rale or regulation, unless he makes an ‘initial showing’ that ‘he was adversely affected by the lack of publication____’ ” Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chen Zhou Chai v. Carroll
Ass'n, 834 F.2d at 1046 ; Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chen Zhou Chai v. Carroll
Ass’n, 834 F.2d at 1046 ; Moda-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Environment Now! v. Espy
In addition, 36 C.F.R. § 217.18 is a policy statement, defined as “statements issued by an agency to advise the public prospectively of the manner in which the agency proposes to exercise a discretionary power.” Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 1987), quoting, Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. Larsen
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Currently only the Ninth Circuit qualifies under this statute 8 See, e.g., Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.1987) ("[A]gency decisions made pursuant to general statements of policy may be judicially reviewable at least for abuse of discretion." [citations omitted]; Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.2d 315, 319 (5th Cir.1981) (policy statements reviewed under arbitrary, capricious standard); American Trucking Association, Inc. v. United States, 755 F.2d 1292, 1298 (7th Cir.1985) ("[T]he scope of our review [of a statement of general policy] would be excee…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 1993
Notice and comment. 59 We review de novo "the district court's determinations on issues of statutory interpretation, including the scope of the notice-and-comment and publication requirements imposed by the APA." Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cal-Almond, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture
We review de novo “the district court’s determinations on issues of statutory interpretation, including the scope of the notice-and-comment and publication requirements imposed by the APA.” Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca9 1992
In contrast, to the extent that the directive "narrowly limits administrative discretion" or establishes a "binding norm" that "so fills out the statutory scheme that upon application one need only determine whether a given case is within the rule's criterion," it effectively replaces agency discretion with a new "binding rule of substantive law." 21 Id. at 1013-14 (emphasis added and citations omitted); see also Public Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. NRC, 940 F.2d 679, 681-82 (D.C.Cir.1991) ("In determining whether an agency statement is a substantive rule, which requires notice and comment, or a polic…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Municipality of Anchorage v. United States
In contrast, to the extent that the directive “narrowly limits administrative discretion” or establishes a “binding norm” that “so fills out the statutory scheme that upon application one need only determine whether a given case is within the rule’s criterion,” it effectively replaces agency discretion with a new “binding rule of substantive law.” Id. at 1013-14 (emphasis added and citations omitted); see also Public Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. NRC, 940 F.2d 679, 681-82 (D.C.Cir.1991) (“In determining whether an agency statement is a substantive rule, which requires notice and co…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Narayan v. Ilchert
Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir.1987); Romiero de Silva v. Smith, 773 F.2d 1021 , 1024-25 n. 3 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Terry James Kohl
United States v. Lawrence, 916 F.2d 553, 554 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1418 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 930 , 110 S.Ct. 2168 , 109 L.Ed.2d 497 (1990) (citing Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.1987)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ca3 1992
Id.; Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013-15 (9th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Labor Relations Authority v. U.S. Department of the Navy
Id.; Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013-15 (9th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Department of Environmental Resources v. Rushton Mining Co.
Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerald L. Burge v. Joseph Eastburn, Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , for the denial of a FOIA request is a “final order." See Mahdavi v. Central Intelligence Agency, 898 F.2d 156 (9th Cir.) (unpublished), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 105 , 112 L.Ed.2d 75 (1990); Lewis v. Internal Revenue Serv., 823 F.2d 375, 377 (9th Cir.1987); Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.1987); Church of Scientology v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 611 F.2d 738 , 741 (9th Cir.1979). 4 . 874 F.2d at 320 -21 (citing McCorstin v. Department of Labor, 630 F.2d 242, 245 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) ("Exempt…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
San Diego Air Sports Center, Inc., a California Corporation v. Federal Aviation Administration
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
That directive “merely provide[d] guidance to agency officials in exercising their discretionary powers while preserving their flexibility and their opportunity to make ‘individualized determination[s].’ ” 813 F.2d at 1013 (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark Buettner Henry G. Hamar v. Kavilco, Inc.
Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald Lang Kenneth Beck Michael Erickson, Cross-Appellants v. Great Falls School District No. 1 and A, Cross-Appellee
Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.1987).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hung Hy Nguyen Dba Mekong Market v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
This circuit’s precedents firmly establish that a claimant in Nguyen’s position cannot succeed under § 552(a)(1) unless the unpublished material at issue affected his “substantive rights.” See, e.g., Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir. *700 1987); Cubanski v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1421, 1428-29 (9th Cir.1986), cert. granted sub. nom.
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Texas v. USA
(2×)
See Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1987) (rejecting claim that the 1981 version of INS Operating Instruction 103.1(a)(1)(ii) “violated the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, because the amended Operating Instruction qualifies under the APA’s exception for ‘general statements of policy’”); Pasquini v. Morris, 700 F.2d 658, 662 (11th Cir. 1983) (concluding that Operating Instruction 103.1(a)(1)(ii) was exempt from § 553(b) because it was “only general guidance for service employees” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 57 Case: 15-402…
Joyce ATKINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
85-2200.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 27, 1987.
Allan S. Haley, Nevada City, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant., Mark J. Bennett, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant-appellee.
Nelson, Canby, Noonan.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER
Judges Nelson and Canby voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judge Noonan votes to grant the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. The opinion filed November 14, 1986 is amended on pg. 9, Ins. 2-4, suggested by Judge Canby, as follows:
“Thus, in treating Atkinson for complications of her pregnancy, Atkinson’s doctor was implementing decisions of military judgment only in the remotest sense.”