United States v. James Lynn Hooton
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Per curiam
On October 13, 1982, we granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance in this case, but denied similar motions in several other cases. Although motions for summary disposition are ordinarily granted or denied without opinion, see Page v. United States, 356 F.2d 337, 339 n. 1 (9th Cir.1966), we issue this opinion to clarify our position on such matters.
In Page, we noted that the Rules of the Ninth Circuit do not explicitly provide for motions to affirm, but such motions are authorized under the Rules of the United States Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Rule 8(2) [now Rule 5], which…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- United States v. Augustinus Petrus Maria KouwenhovenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- United States v. Lewis C. Ecker, IICourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
- Earnest T. Page v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- United States v. Anita Miranda-Parra and Maria Delia-EstradaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
3Cited by1,484 opinions
- United States v. Roy C. AmesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
- In Re ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- State v. PierceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1990
- United States v. Sergio Rafael GonzalezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Nevarez-DiazDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1986
1,479 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.