Legal Opinion · Dissent

Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 2, 2008No. 07-16458, 07-16492, 07-16725Published

1DissentN. Randy Smith, Circuit Judge

The district court’s failure to conduct the requisite evidentiary hearing prevents me from joining the majority’s opinion. The majority correctly recognizes that the district court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before issuing a permanent injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 unless (1) the facts were undisputed; or (2) the adverse party expressly waived its right to an evidentiary hearing. Charlton v. Estate of Charlton, 841 F.2d 988, 989 (9th Cir.1988). Despite recognizing this clear precedent, the majority affirms the district court’s decision to proceed…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. The Lands Council v. McNairCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  2. Idaho Watersheds Project v. HahnCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  3. Charlton v. Estate OfCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API