Kelvin Forrest v. Margaret Pugh, Comm'r, Dept. Of Corr., 94 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Kelvin Forrest v. Margaret Pugh, Comm'r, Dept. Of Corr., 94 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“privity is generally a requirement for implied warranty claims under california 6 law.”
42 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (cand, 2025-02-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) John Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
privity is generally a requirement for implied warranty claims under california 4 law.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) John Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 2024 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
privity is generally a requirement for implied warranty claims under california 6 law.
cited Cited "see" Feick v. Brutsche Family Revocable Trust
W.D. Wash. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. 19 Mr. Feick cites Molus v. Swan in support of his argument that the state court filings 20 restart the statute of limitations.
Kelvin Forrest
v.
Margaret Pugh, Commissioner, Dept. Of Corrections
95-35924.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 12, 1996.
94 F.3d 651
Unpublished
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 90%
Citer courts: N.D. California (2)

94 F.3d 651

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Kelvin FORREST, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Margaret PUGH, Commissioner, Dept. of Corrections,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-35924.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 8, 1996.[*]
Decided Aug. 12, 1996.

Before: GOODWIN, BRUNETTI and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[**]

2

Petitioner appeals the district court's dismissal, for failure to exhaust state remedies, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. In his habeas petition, Petitioner argues that the trial court's refusal to allow the testimony of a certain witness violated the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In his state appeals, however, Petitioner challenged the exclusion of the witness's testimony solely on state-law grounds. Because Petitioner failed to alert the state court to the federal nature of his claim, the district court properly dismissed his petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Duncan v. Henry, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995); Johnson v. Zenon, No. 94-36052, slip op. 8353, 8360-61 (9th Cir. July 11, 1996).

3

AFFIRMED.

*

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