Singh v. Napolitano
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM Opinion; Dissent by Judge McKEOWN.
ORDER
The opinion filed on August 23, 2010 [619 F.3d 1101] is amended as follows:
On page 12609 [619 F.3d at 1104] of the slip opinion, line 5: Insert footnote ul” after the sentence that ends, “280.” The text of the footnote should read: “Where an agency’s adjudicatory action has a retroactive effect, we have applied a five-factor test to determine whether application of the new administrative decision would be “contrary” to “legal and equitable principles.” See Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982). Nonetheless, because…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Shobna Chandar Lata v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Kulvir Singh Barapind v. Janet Reno, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Jin Bo Zhao v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Francisco Garfias-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Francisco Garfias-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Jingshan Li v. Pamela BondiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2025
- (HC) Adam v. HorstDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- (HC) Cano v. WardenDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2025
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.