Legal Opinion
Bundy v. United States District Court for District of Nevada
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 30, 2017No. 17-70700PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Attorney Larry Klayman applied to be admitted pro hac vice in the high-profile criminal trial of Cliven Bundy. The district court denied his application without prejudice. Bundy filed an emergency petition with us for a writ of mandamus to force the district court to admit Klayman. We declined to do so in October 2016. See In re Bundy, 840 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2016). We wrote then:
Under our decisions, the district court had more than ample cause to turn down Klayman’s application: he is involved in an ethics proceeding before the District of Columbia Bar, and he was not candid with the…
3Cases cited12 opinions
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Cheney v. United States District Court for District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1983
- United States v. GarrettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by6 opinions
- Finder v. Leprino Foods CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019
- In re KlaymanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2025
- Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2019
- Klayman v. LimDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
- Lama v. New Century FoundationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.