Legal Opinion
United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 27, 1993No. 92-15581PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Per curiam
A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1654. An-attorney appeared for High Country in the district court for the limited purpose of filing an answer and cross-complaint. See CR 3. When it became apparent that Crisler (who was not a licensed attorney at that time) was attempting to represent High Country, the district court ordered High Country to retain counsel for the duration of the litigation. When High Country failed to do so, the district…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Marquis Theatre Corp., Etc. v. Condado Mini Cinema, George DennisCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
- Ruck Corp. v. WoudenbergCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980
- Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc. v. QuinardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
3Cited by28 opinions
- Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- United States v. High Country Broadcasting Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. HagermanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- Jacobs v. Patent Enforcement Fund, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Downtown Disposal Services, Inc. v. The City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 2012
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.