Legal Opinion
LPI Downtown Investors 1 v. Hahn
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 13, 1998No. 97-55018Unpublished
1Opinion of the Court
139 F.3d 906
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
LPI DOWNTOWN INVESTORS 1, a California limited partnership;
Michael H. Lapidus, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
James K. HAHN, individually and as City Attorney for the
City of Los Angeles; Richard M. Bobb, individually and as
Deputy City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles; Howard D.
Stern, individually and as Electrical Inspector for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. SantanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Chapman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Ashley Hunt Greenwood v. Federal Aviation AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Rudolph STECKL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.