1996 Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals Case Law

Opinions 1001 - 1500 of 4104

Huey Deville, Appellant, v. Shell Oil Company, a Corporation, Appellee
Date: September 16, 1996
Citation: 366 F.2d 123
James D. Maciel, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James H. Gomez, Individually and As Director of Thedepartment of Corrections, State of Ca; Diane Butler,individually and As Chief of Classification Services,sacramento, Ca; Unknown Alexander, Individually and Asclassification Staff Representative, Sacramento, Ca;unknown Becker, Individually and As Classification Staffrepresentative, Sacramento, Ca; Jack R. Reagan,individually and As Chief Inmate Appeals, Sacramento, Ca;r. Munoz, Individually and As Appeals Examiner, Sacramento,ca; Art Calderon, Individually and As Warden of Thecalifornia Rehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca; Mark Lary,individually and As Associate Warden (acting) and Asclassification and Parole Representative for the Californiarehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca; R. Castro, Individuallyand As Associate Warden of the California Rehabilitationcenter, Norco, Ca; N. Law, Individually and As Associatewarden of the California Rehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca;p. Underwood, Individually and As Program Administrator Ofthe California Rehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca; D. Harris,individually and As Program Administrator of the Californiarehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca; Robert Tafolla,individually and As Appeals Coordinator and As Correctionalcounselor Ii of the California Rehabilitation Center, Norco,ca; Carl Owen, Individually and As Correctional Counselorii of the California Rehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca; Paulcook, Individually and As Warden (acting) of the Californiavalley State Prison, Blythe, Ca; R. Green, Individually And(as Plaintiff Believes It to Be) Classification and Parolerepresentative of the California Valley State Prison,blythe, Ca; Unknown Sapiens, Individually and Ascorrectional Counselor of the California Valley Stateprison, Blythe, Ca; Staff Members of the Classificationunit, for the Department of Corrections, Sacremento, Ca, Defendants,andd. Guerrero, Individually and As Lieutenant of Thecalifornia Rehabilitation Center Norco, Ca; E.m. Jimenez,individually and As Lieutenant for Unit Iii of Thecalifornia Rehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca; B. Welch,individually and As Program Lieutenant (acting) of Thecalifornia Rehabilitation Center, Norco Ca, Defendants-appellees.james D. Maciel, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James H. Gomez, Individually and As Director of Thedepartment of Corrections, State of California; R. Castro,individually and As Associate Warden of the Californiarehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca; Di Carlo, Individuallyand As Associate Warden of the California Institution Formen, Chino, Ca; Unknown Green, Mr., Individually and Asappeals Coordinator of the California Institution for Men,chino, Ca; D. Guerrero, Individually and As Appealscoordinator for Men, Chino, Ca; Unknown Round, Mr.,individually and As Correctional Officer of the Californiarehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca; Unknown San Marco, Ms.,individually and As Correctional Officer of the Californiarehabilitation Center, Norco, Ca; Unknown Moser, Mr.,individually and As Lieutenant of the California Institutionof Men, Chino, Ca; F. Manter, Individually and As Sergeantof the California Institution for Men, Chino, Ca; F.ciauri, Individually and As Sergeant of the Californiainstitution for Men, Chino, Ca; Unknown Mckinney,individually and As Sergeant of the California Institutionfor Men, Chino, Ca; F. Venegas, Individually and Ascorrectional Officer of the California Institution for Men,chino, Ca; Unknown Harris, Ms., Individually and Ascorrectional Officer of the California Institution for Men,chino, Ca; H.l. Collins, Individually and As Correctionalofficer of the California Institution for Men, Chino, Ca;a. Ramos, Individually and As Correctional Officer of Thecalifornia Institution for Men, Chino, Ca; B. Blankenship,individually and As Correctional Officer of the Californiainstitution for Men, Chino, Ca; J. Chavez, Individually Andas Correctional Officer of the California Institution Formen, Chino, Ca; F. Holmes, Individually and As Correctionalofficer of the California Institution for Men, Chino, Ca;j. Benthall, Individually and As Correctional Officer o
Date: September 13, 1996
Citation: 97 F.3d 1459
Pandol Bros. Inc.; Antonio Munoz Y Cia, S.a., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Indemnity Marine Assurance Co. Ltd.; Commercial Unionassurance Company, Plc "t" A/c; Orion Insurance Co., Plc"t" A/c; Skandia Uk Insurance, Plc "t" A/c; Yasuda Fire &marine Insurance Company Europe, Ltd., "t" A/c Per the Orioninsurance Company Plc "t" A/c "ht" Group; Ocean Marineinsurance Company, Northern Assurance Company Ltd; Norwichunion Fire Insurance Society, Ltd; London and Hull Maritimeinsurance Company Ltd English and American Insurancecompany, Ltd; Switzerland Insurance Company Uk Ltd; Nipponinsurance Company of Europe Ltd; Fuji Fire & Marineinsurance Company Uk; Phoenix Assurance; Polarisassurance; Folksam International Insurance Company (uk)ltd; Underwriters at Lloyds London; Defendants-appellees.pandol Bros. Inc.; Antonio Munoz Y Cia, S.a., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Indemnity Marine Assurance Co. Ltd.; Commercial Unionassurance Company, Plc "t" A/c; Orion Insurance Co., Plc"t" A/c; Skandia Uk Insurance, Plc "t" A/c; Yasuda Fire &marine Insurance Company Europe, Ltd., "t" A/c Per the Orioninsurance Company Plc "t" A/c "ht" Group; Ocean Marineinsurance Company, Northern Assurance Company Ltd; Norwichunion Fire Insurance Society, Ltd; London and Hull Maritimeinsurance Company Ltd English and American Insurancecompany, Ltd; Switzerland Insurance Company Uk Ltd; Nipponinsurance Company of Europe Ltd; Fuji Fire & Marineinsurance Company Uk; Phoenix Assurance; Polarisassurance; Folksam International Insurance Company (uk)ltd; Underwriters at Lloyds London; Defendants-appellants
Date: August 30, 1996
Citation: 97 F.3d 1460
No. 95-35167
Date: August 16, 1996
Citation: 93 F.3d 572
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,317
Date: August 12, 1996
Citation: 94 F.3d 650

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.