Legal Opinion
Bova v. City of Medford
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 4, 2009No. 08-35091PublishedCited by 77 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The memorandum disposition filed March 6, 2009, is redesignated as an authored opinion by Judge Graber with modifications.
With the filing of the attached opinion, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.
OPINION
GRABER, Circuit Judge:
This appeal concerns Defendant City of Medford’s (“City”) policy of discontinuing health care insurance coverage to City employees after they have retired from City service. Plaintiffs are current employees of the City who have not yet retired — and thus who have not yet been denied any…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Texas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Nunez v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Colwell v. Department of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Alejandro Rodriguez v. James HayesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Wood v. City of San DiegoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Mulhall v. Unite Here Local 355Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2010
- Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 2012
- Alcoa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.