The Ninth Circuit case arose from a long-running copyright dispute over Superman between DC Comics and the heirs of creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who were represented in part by attorney-producer Marc Toberoff. After certain attorney-client privileged documents from Toberoff’s files were sent to DC Comics by a former associate and also produced by the heirs to the federal government in connection with a grand jury matter, DC Comics sought to use them in the civil litigation; the heirs petitioned for mandamus after the district court rejected their privilege claims. The court denied the petition, holding that the voluntary production to the government effected a complete waiver of attorney-client privilege as to those documents. It reasoned that federal law does not recognize a selective or limited waiver doctrine allowing parties to disclose privileged material to the government while preserving the privilege against others, and that Toberoff had authority to waive the privilege on the clients’ behalf. The opinion further noted that the documents’ disclosure did not implicate grand-jury secrecy rules.
This case is an immigration petition for review brought by Olakunle Oshodi (under multiple aliases) against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in the Ninth Circuit, arising from agency proceedings under number A023-484-662. A majority of the court's nonrecused active judges voted to rehear the matter en banc under Circuit Rule 35-3. The order directs that the prior three-judge panel opinion may not be cited as precedent by or to any court in the Ninth Circuit.
This case concerns multiple immigrant plaintiffs challenging decisions by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department over the processing and availability of visas or related immigration benefits. The Ninth Circuit ordered the matter reheard en banc under Circuit Rule 35-3. The order was issued after a majority of nonrecused active judges voted in favor of full-court review. As a direct result, the earlier three-judge panel opinion is vacated for citation purposes and may not be relied upon as precedent by or within the Ninth Circuit.
In Carrera v. Ayers, petitioner Constantino Carrera appealed a district court ruling in his federal habeas case against the warden of San Quentin prison. The Ninth Circuit ordered the appeal reheard en banc after a majority of nonrecused active judges voted to do so under Circuit Rule 35-3. The order vacated the three-judge panel opinion and barred any court within the Ninth Circuit from citing it as precedent. The decision was issued on April 12, 2012.
In United States v. Cotterman, the government appealed a district court ruling in a criminal case against defendant Howard Wesley Cotterman. The Ninth Circuit issued an order granting rehearing en banc after a majority of nonrecused active judges voted in favor, pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. This action vacates the prior three-judge panel decision, which may no longer be cited as precedent by or to any court within the Ninth Circuit. The order reflects standard appellate procedure for reviewing significant cases with full court participation rather than a panel.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order in two related criminal appeals, United States v. Yepez and United States v. Acosta-Montes, which had previously been decided by three-judge panels. Upon a vote of a majority of the court's nonrecused active judges, the cases were ordered reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The prior panel opinions were stripped of precedential effect and may not be cited by or to any court in the Ninth Circuit. Judge Christen did not participate in the vote or deliberations.
This case involves an immigration appeal by Francisco Javier Garfias-Rodriguez challenging a decision by the Attorney General. The Ninth Circuit ordered the case reheard en banc by the full court of active judges, following a majority vote under Circuit Rule 35-3. As a result, the prior three-judge panel opinion may no longer be cited as precedent within the Ninth Circuit. Judge Christen took no part in the vote or deliberations. The order does not address the underlying merits of the petition.
The case involves Rocio Brenda Henriquez-Rivas, who petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of an immigration decision by the Attorney General (likely involving removal or asylum eligibility). The court issued an order directing that the case be reheard en banc. This was done pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3 after a majority of nonrecused active judges voted in favor of rehearing before a larger panel of the court. The order was issued on January 31, 2012, and published as a formal decision of the Ninth Circuit.
Bryan Vincent I. Pagayon, a legal permanent resident from the Philippines, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders directing his removal and denying reconsideration. The case centered on whether Pagayon’s admissions at a removal hearing—that he had been convicted under California Penal Code § 12021(a)(1) for firearm possession by a felon and California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) for methamphetamine possession—established removability, and whether he qualified for relief such as withholding of removal based on claimed fear of persecution. The court denied the petitions, holding that the immigration judge properly relied on Pagayon’s explicit admissions and supporting documents to find him removable, that he failed to meet his burden of proving eligibility for relief because any feared harm was not shown to be on account of a protected ground, and that alleged procedural errors did not violate due process because they did not affect the outcome given the accepted facts.
The case Nordyke v. King involved plaintiffs who operated gun shows and challenged an Alameda County, California ordinance that effectively banned gun shows on county property, raising constitutional claims including under the Second Amendment. In this order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to rehear the appeal en banc, meaning before a larger panel of active judges rather than the original three-judge panel. The core reasoning was that a majority of nonrecused active judges voted to grant en banc review under Circuit Rule 35-3, which automatically vacated the prior panel opinion's status as precedent within the Ninth Circuit. Judge Rawlinson took no part in the vote or deliberations. This procedural step paused further action on the panel's earlier ruling pending the full court's consideration.
This case involves two nonprofit veterans' organizations suing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and other Department of Veterans Affairs officials on behalf of veterans, raising claims related to VA processes. The Ninth Circuit ordered the appeal reheard en banc under Circuit Rule 35-3 after a majority of nonrecused active judges voted to do so. As a result, the prior three-judge panel opinion may not be cited as precedent by or to any court in the circuit. Judge W. Fletcher took no part in the vote or deliberations.
The case involves a class action lawsuit by Armenian-American plaintiffs against German insurance companies, seeking recovery on life insurance policies allegedly issued to victims of the Armenian Genocide and later acquired by the defendants. The Ninth Circuit ordered the appeal reheard en banc by the full court after a majority of nonrecused active judges voted in favor of rehearing under Circuit Rule 35-3. As a result, the prior three-judge panel opinion may no longer be cited as precedent within the Ninth Circuit. Judge Bybee did not participate in the vote or deliberations.
This order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerns the criminal case United States v. David Nosal, in which the government appealed a district court ruling. A majority of the circuit's nonrecused active judges voted to rehear the appeal en banc under Circuit Rule 35-3, vacating the prior decision by a three-judge panel. As a result, the panel opinion may no longer be cited as precedent by or to any court within the Ninth Circuit. The order does not address the underlying facts or legal issues in the case.
The case involved the estates of Harry Stonehill and Robert Brooks, who sought to vacate a 1967 federal tax judgment against them by filing a Rule 60(b) motion. They argued that newly obtained FOIA evidence showed the government had committed fraud on the court in the original suppression hearing and appeal, and that their associate William Saunders had improperly provided information to authorities while serving as their attorney, invoking United States v. Throckmorton. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. It held that the evidence revealed only limited government misconduct on tangential issues, which did not rise to the level of fraud on the court or prevent a fair adjudication. The court also rejected the Throckmorton claim because the record did not clearly establish that Saunders was acting as counsel rather than a business associate when he cooperated with the government.
The case involves an appeal by the Karuk Tribe of California challenging decisions by the U.S. Forest Service regarding mining activities on public lands, with The New 49’ers, Inc. and an individual miner intervening as defendants. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had previously issued an opinion in the matter. A majority of the court’s nonrecused active judges then voted to rehear the appeal en banc under Circuit Rule 35-3, which automatically strips the panel opinion of any precedential effect and bars its citation in future Ninth Circuit cases. Judge Rawlinson took no part in the en banc vote.
This case is a criminal prosecution by the United States against multiple defendants. The Ninth Circuit ordered the matter reheard en banc after a majority of nonrecused active judges voted in favor under Circuit Rule 35-3. As a result, the prior three-judge panel opinion may no longer be cited as precedent by or to any court within the Ninth Circuit. The order is purely procedural and does not address the underlying charges or merits.
This case involves an appeal by the United States in a criminal prosecution of Ahmed Ressam. The Ninth Circuit ordered en banc rehearing of the matter after a majority of nonrecused active judges voted in favor under Circuit Rule 35-3. The order further provides that the prior three-judge panel opinion may not be cited as precedent by or to any court within the Ninth Circuit.
This case involves a petition filed by Arel Price against Stevedoring Services of America, Inc., related insurance companies, and the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, arising under a workers’ compensation claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upon a vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, ordered that the case be reheard en banc under Circuit Rule 35-3. The order further provides that the prior three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
The case involves a petition for review filed by Joseph Cristopher Young against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. A majority of nonrecused active judges of the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc under Circuit Rule 35-3. The prior opinion issued by the three-judge panel may not be cited as precedent by or to any court within the Ninth Circuit. Judge Bybee did not participate in the deliberations or vote.
The case involved Bryan Vincent I. Pagayon, a legal permanent resident from the Philippines, petitioning for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order directing his removal based on convictions under California law for firearm possession by a felon and controlled substance possession. The Ninth Circuit denied the petitions, holding that Pagayon's initial admission to the convictions before the immigration judge established removability and that his applications for asylum and withholding of removal failed because his claimed fear of persecution by police related to a personal vendetta over his father's murder rather than a protected ground such as imputed political opinion. The court further rejected due process claims concerning the immigration judge's evidentiary rulings, finding no prejudice to the outcome since Pagayon's testimony was accepted as true.
.jpg?width=900)