Legal Opinion
David J. Gallo, Movant-Appellant v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Real Party in Interest-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 9, 2003No. 01-17332PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EZRA, District Judge.
Movant-Appellant David J. Gallo (“Gallo”) appeals from the District Court’s order that pursuant to an amendment to Rule 1.5 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Rule 1.5”), Gallo no longer may appear before the District of Arizona without successful completion of a pro hac vice application. 1 In his appeal, he argues that the rule is unconstitutional and that the District Court erred in concluding that Gallo had received sufficient notice of the applicability of the amendment to him and that the Ninth Circuit should…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Bowen v. Georgetown University HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Miller v. GammieCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- Jeffrey L. Clemens v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, United States of America, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- fhlmc/freddie Mac v. Sfr Investments Pool 1, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Gadda v. AshcroftCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. United States District Court for the District of MontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.