Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
United States v. Victoria L. Ray
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 23, 2004No. 03-30339Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrewster, Senior District Judge
I. SUMMARY
The members of the panel see this case in three different postures.. Graber, J. would AFFIRM the district court order of July 29, 2003, denying the government’s motion to set aside Standing Order DWM-28. Clifton, J., DISSENTING IN PART *1005and CONCURRING IN PART, would REVERSE the district court order of July-29, 2003, and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate Standing Order DWM-28. I would VACATE the district court order of July 29, because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the government’s motion to set aside the Standing Order.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United Nuclear Corporation v. Cranford Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Rex L. Shuffler and Betty L. Shuffler v. Heritage Bank, a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Blossom v. The Milwaukee, &C., Railroad CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Watson v. County of RiversideCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Allen v. Minnstar, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.