Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Corrinet

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 19, 2011No. 10-35568Published

1DissentIkuta, Circuit Judge

While the facts of this case evoke sympathy, they do not give us jurisdiction. The district court applied its generally applicable local rules in determining that Corrinet was ineligible for membership in the district court bar. See Local Rule 83-2 (Admission to General Practice), Local Rules for the District of Oregon, Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Because we lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s admission decisions, see Gallo v. U.S. Dist. Court, 349 F.3d 1169, 1176 (9th Cir.2003), but do have jurisdiction to review disbarments, see In re North, 383 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir.2004),…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Holly W. BAUMAN Et Al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondent, Union Oil Company, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
  2. Lovell v. ChandlerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  3. In Re SnyderSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Perry v. SchwarzeneggerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
  5. David J. Gallo, Movant-Appellant v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Real Party in Interest-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API