Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Jerry Hill D/B/A American Sewing & Bag Company v. Blind Industries and Services of Maryland

Jerry Hill D/B/A Am. Sewing & Bag Co. v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Md., 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1999)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1999-06-04
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • noting that “[b]ecause the petitioners renew on this appeal the specific objections proffered in their administrative petitions for rehearing, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825l (b)” (emphasis added)
  • observing that abstention has been raised sua sponte
  • “[O]nce we are satisfied that a proposing agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at a decision’s environmental consequences, our review is at an end.” (internal quotations and brackets omitted)

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jerry Hill D/B/A American Sewing & Bag Company v. Blind Industries and Services of Maryland. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
57 opinions
HILL v. BLIND INDUSTRIES SER., MARYLAND,201 F.3d 1186(9th Cir. 2000)
JERRY HILL d/b/a AMERICAN SEWING BAG COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLIND
INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES OF MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-55382
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted November 3, 1998 — Pasadena, California
Filed June 4, 1999
Amended January 31, 2000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, R.J. Groh, Jr., Magistrate Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-95-01208-JG.
Before: Alex Kozinski and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges, and Owen M. Panner, District Judge.fn*
Prior report179 F.3d 754
ORDER
[1] The petition for rehearing is denied. The case failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. The suggestion for rehearing en banc is therefore rejected. Fed.R.App.P.35(a).

[2] The opinion filed on June 4, 1999 is amended by the insertion of a footnote on page 5665 of the slip opinion, immediately following the sentence "The Court then addressed the merits of the appeal." The footnote shall read as follows:
Under the law of this circuit, an entity invoking Eleventh Amendment immunity bears the burden of asserting and proving those matters necessary to establish its defense. See ITSI TV,3 F.3d at 1291-92. Given that BISM has never argued, either below or on appeal, that state law precluded waiver, we need not address the issue. As the Court said in Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections, "[u]nless the State raises the matter, a court can ignore it." Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections, 524 U.S. at ___,118 S.Ct. at 2052. This is true of Eleventh Amendment immunity as a whole, and we believe it to be equally true of any matter needed to establish that immunity's applicability in a given context.
Page 1211
  1. The Honorable Owen M. Panner, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. ↩