United States v. William James Bichsel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:
Because the indoor posting of applicable federal regulations was inconspicuous to visitors outside the United States courthouse in Tacoma (“the courthouse”), we must reach an issue of first impression: whether actual notice is sufficient to meet the conspicuous posting requirement of 40 U.S.C. § 1315 for the enforcement of 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.385, failure to comply with the lawful order of a federal police officer. 1 We hold that actual notice is fair and adequate notice, and affirm Father William Bichsel’s (“Father Bichsel”) conviction under the regulation.
I…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. James Cabaccang, United States of America v. Richard T. Cabaccang, United States of America v. Roy Toves CabaccangCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. CassiagnolCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1970
- United States v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. Ralph M. CrowCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- United States v. Joseph StrakoffCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- United States v. StrongCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2013
- Roshchin v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Trunk v. City of San DiegoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2008
- United States v. Rojas-OsorioDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
- United States v. DengDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2008
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.