TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Citing references

Opinions citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996)

6,075 citing cases · 189 match your filters

Negative treatment
Depth Newest Oldest Most cited
Majority opinions only
1 2–3 4–9 10+ times cited
  1. United States v. Michael Johnson
    256 F.3d 895 Ninth CircuitJuly 20, 2001

    Nelson, Silverman, Gould and Paez) concludes that, under Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), the determination of the curtilage must be reviewed de novo on appeal.

  2. Tolbert v. Page
    182 F.3d 677 Ninth CircuitJune 28, 1999 Dissent

    United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), “points in the direction of de novo review.” Mahaffey v. Page, 162 F.3d 481, 484 (7th Cir.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1786 , 143 L.Ed.2d 814 (1999).

  3. United States v. Valdes-Vega
    738 F.3d 1074 Ninth CircuitDecember 24, 2013

    Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952, 968 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)). We thus apply “a peculiar sort of de novo review,” United States v.

  4. United States v. Berber-Tinoco
    510 F.3d 1083 Ninth CircuitDecember 19, 2007

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Id.; United States v. Tiong, 224 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2000).

  5. Donahoe v. Arpaio
    986 F. Supp. 2d 1091 D. ArizonaDecember 5, 2013

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).

  6. Irene Amaya Demorua Araceli Morua-Amaya Brenda Cecilia Morua-Amaya Olga Amaya De Vasquez v. United States
    129 F.3d 125 Ninth CircuitNovember 6, 1997 Unpublished

    Ornelas v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 (1996). B. Merits 14 Under the FTCA, the United States is liable for common law torts committed by federal employees within the scope of their employment. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (b), 2674 (1994).

  7. Dearcey Stewart v. Matthew Cate
    757 F.3d 929 Ninth CircuitMay 1, 2014 Dissent

    Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 436 , 121 S.Ct. 1678 , 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)); accord Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v.

  8. United States v. Ronald Teck Hua Tiong, United States of America v. Raul Miguel Rubio-Alabau
    224 F.3d 1136 Ninth CircuitSeptember 6, 2000

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). 4 . United States v. Michael R., 90 F.3d 340, 345-46 (9th Cir.1996). 5 . Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 692 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 . 6 . United States v.

  9. United States of America, Intrigue Trading, Inc. v. 4,432 Mastercases of Cigarettes, More or Less, United States of America, Intrigue Trading, Inc. v. 4,432 Mastercases of Cigarettes, More or Less, United States of America, Intrigue Trading, Inc. v. 4,432 Mastercases of Cigarettes, More or Less
    448 F.3d 1168 Ninth CircuitJune 2, 2006

    United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), we give reasonable deference to the inferences and judgments of experienced agents in the field, see id. at 700 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 ; United States v. $129,727.00 U.S.

  10. Dearcey Stewart v. Matthew Cate
    734 F.3d 995 Ninth CircuitNovember 1, 2013 Dissent

    Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 436 , 121 S.Ct. 1678 , 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)); accord Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v.

  11. United States v. 4,432 Mastercases of Cigarettes
    448 F.3d 1168 Ninth CircuitJune 1, 2006

    United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), we give reasonable deference to the inferences and judgments of experienced agents in the field, see id. at 700 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 ; United States v. $129,727.00 U.S.

  12. United States v. Jacob Del Mundo Faagai
    869 F.3d 1145 Ninth CircuitSeptember 7, 2017

    Ibarra, 345 F.3d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696-97 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)). III.

  13. United States v. Michael Johnson
    713 F. App'x 687 Ninth CircuitFebruary 26, 2018 Unpublished

    United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), “a reviewing court should take care both to review findings of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local

  14. United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela
    268 F.3d 719 Ninth CircuitOctober 15, 2001

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). However, we review the factual findings underlying these determinations for clear error. United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.2000). A.

  15. United States v. Ortiz-Hernandez
    427 F.3d 567 Ninth CircuitOctober 26, 2005

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (citation omitted). Findings of fact underlying the district court’s legal determinations are reviewed for clear error. See United States v.

  16. United States v. Juvenile (Rra-A)
    229 F.3d 737 Ninth CircuitOctober 3, 2000

    See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). Mixed questions of fact and law are generally reviewed de novo but mixed questions in which factual issues predominate are reviewed for clear error.

  17. United States v. Danny Lee Kyllo
    190 F.3d 1041 Ninth CircuitSeptember 9, 1999

    See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403, 1406 (9th Cir.1994). Analysis I.

  18. United States v. Indalecio Ibarra
    345 F.3d 711 Ninth CircuitSeptember 26, 2003

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696-97, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). We agree with the *716 district court that the officers had probable cause to search Ibarra’s vehicle.

  19. Redding v. Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1
    531 F.3d 1071 Ninth CircuitJuly 11, 2008

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

  20. United States v. Juvenile (Rra-A)
    199 F.3d 998 Ninth CircuitDecember 15, 1999

    See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). This court generally reviews de novo mixed questions of fact and law, but reviews for clear error mixed questions in which the factual issues predominate.

  21. United States v. Cheek
    586 F. Supp. 2d 1099 D. ArizonaOctober 7, 2008

    See, e.g., Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695-96 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1661-62 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).

  22. United States v. Pratt
    104 F. App'x 135 Ninth CircuitAugust 2, 2004

    See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (reviewing courts must give “due weight to inferences drawn from [the facts] by ... local law enforcement officers”); United States v.

  23. United States v. Bigsby
    145 F. App'x 595 Ninth CircuitAugust 22, 2005

    United States v.

  24. United States v. Jose Luis Ortiz-Hernandez, United States of America v
    427 F.3d 567 Ninth CircuitOctober 27, 2005

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (citation omitted). Findings of fact underlying the district court's legal determinations are reviewed for clear error. See United States v.

  25. United States v. Howard
    60 F. App'x 33 Ninth CircuitFebruary 25, 2003

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (citation omitted). The legality of a warrantless search is reviewed de novo. Id. at 699 . Underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Id.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list