Ninth Circuit· 9/25/2013

James MacIel, Sr. v. Matthew Cates

Citations

731 F.3d 928
2013 WL 5340482
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19599

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “failing to address [an argument] in [] 23 reply brief” forfeits the argument
holding a party forfeited an argument raised in the opponent’s answering 17 brief by failing to address it in reply brief
holding a party forfeited an argument raised in the opponent’s answering brief by failing 23 to address it in reply brief
concluding in a habeas case involving in part a 2,000- foot residency restriction that under AEDPA’s deferential standard of review it was nonpunitive, citing a similar restriction held to be regulatory in Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d 700, 718–23 (8th Cir. 2005)
including 24-hour electronic monitoring among conditions that could be described as “non-custodial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Benavides, Bybee, Nguyen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.