Arizona v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Cases that cite this one
50 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Advocacy Organization for Patients & Providers v. Auto Club Insurance (Mich. 2005)
- Arthur Calderon, Warden v. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert Henry Nicolaus, Real-Party-In-Interest (9th Cir. 1996)
- State Ex Rel. Allen v. Bedell (W. Va. 1995)
- Jaime Portillo v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, United States of America, Real Party in Interest (9th Cir. 1994)
- In re Bendectin Products Liability Litigation (6th Cir. 1984)
- Johnnie Reynaga v. Sharon M. Cammisa Steve White M. Cedillo Michael T. Garcia (9th Cir. 1992)
- United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Or. (In re United States) (9th Cir. 2018)
- Richard R. Spencer v. United States District Court For The Northern District Of California (9th Cir. 2004)
- Spencer v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California (9th Cir. 2004)
- Calderon v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California (9th Cir. 1998)
- Calderon v. United States District Court (9th Cir. 1998)
- Calderon v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (9th Cir. 1997)
- McDaniel v. United States District Court (9th Cir. 1997)
- Taiwan v. United States District Court (9th Cir. 1997)
- Apusento Garden (Guam) Inc. v. Superior Court of Guam (9th Cir. 1996)
- Calderon v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (9th Cir. 1996)
- Calderon v. U.S. District Court (9th Cir. 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
C. A. 9th Cir. Four Members of the Court have disqualified themselves in this case. Because of this absence of a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of Court, the judgment and order are affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.