Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Leonard v. Clark

65 Citing cases

  1. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary

    442 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2006)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the executive director of a private high school athletics association was entitled to qualified immunity

    Brentwood in this case gave up its right to engage in certain types of speech, and may not assert such a right now. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming the district court's decision not to reach the issue of whether a labor union's free speech rights had been violated where the district court had first determined that the union waived its First Amendment protections in a collective bargaining agreement). Brentwood in short gave up its right to speak in violation of TSSAA's game rules (including its anti-recruiting rules) as consideration for access to TSSAA leagues and tournaments, and to benefit from TSSAA's enforcement of its rules against competitors.

  2. Legal Aid Society v. City of New York

    114 F. Supp. 2d 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that the Legal Aid Society's contractual waiver of its right to challenge the City's action, a right provided for by the National Labor Relations Act, was valid

    However, any such waiver must be made "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently." Marsh, 105 F.3d at 111; see Lake James Community Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Burke County, 149 F.3d 277, 280 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1106, 119 S.Ct. 874, 142 L.Ed.2d 775 (1999); United States v. Local 1804-1, 44 F.3d 1091, 1098 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1995); Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993); Erie Telecommunications, 853 F.2d at 1094; Sambo's Restaurants, 663 F.2d at 690. Moreover, the waiver must be established by "clear and compelling" evidence.

  3. Overbey v. Mayor & City Council of Balt.

    930 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2019)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that "strong public interests rooted in the First Amendment" rendered a non-disparagement clause in a settlement agreement from a prior police misconduct lawsuit "unenforceable and void"

    If that were enough, no confidentiality agreement or non-disparagement provision could ever stand. See Leonard v. Clark , 12 F.3d 885, 892 n.12 (9th Cir. 1993). Instead, the proper inquiry is how much those public policy interests are impaired, if at all, based on the applicable record.

  4. Boaters Rights Ass'n v. Withee

    6:23-cv-00333-MTK (D. Or. Dec. 20, 2024)

    ” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993)). For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Mr. Putnam has standing, and the Court need not address whether BRA, an organization, meets the requirements for associational standing.

  5. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress

    402 F. Supp. 3d 615 (N.D. Cal. 2019)   Cited 8 times
    In Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 402 F. Supp. 3d 615, 632-33 (N.D.Cal. 2019), defendants, who were part of a group called the Human Capital Project (HCP), infiltrated Planned Parenthood conferences and facilities "to surreptitiously record conversations with the conference attendees" and staff.

    The first is whether defendants' waivers of their free speech rights by signing the contracts were "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent." See, e.g. , Leonard v. Clark , 12 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended (Mar. 8, 1994) ("First Amendment rights may be waived upon clear and convincing evidence that the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent."). Defendants bear the burden of proof on this affirmative defense.

  6. Gila River Indian Community v. U.S.

    776 F. Supp. 2d 977 (D. Ariz. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    "The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others." Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993). The United States argues in its summary judgment motion that only states have standing to bring a Tenth Amendment claim.

  7. Fisk v. Inslee

    No. 17-35957 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2018)

    We have previously explained that First Amendment rights may be waived only if the waiver is "knowing, voluntary and intelligent." Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1994). Assuming without deciding that contracts with SEIU, a public sector union, involve enough state action to implicate the First Amendment, every employee has a First Amendment right not to financially support SEIU. See, e.g., Janus, 138 S. Ct. at 2486.

  8. Melendres v. Arpaio

    695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 369 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding there was "no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that the equities favor issuance of a narrow, limited preliminary injunction" that does not enjoin the enforcement of valid state laws

    “The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others.” Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1993). B.

  9. Western Watersheds v. Kraayenbrink

    620 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court "may consider evidence outside the administrative record for the limited purposes of reviewing [an] ESA claim"

    Because we conclude that Public Lands Council has standing, we need not consider whether American Farm Bureau Federation also has standing. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993). Intervenors also challenge Plaintiffs' standing to assert their claims.

  10. Agents v. Molasky-Arman

    522 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that `"an identifiable trifle'" is sufficient to establish standing (quoting United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 689 n. 14, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254)

    Section 680A.300 causes Restrepo's injury by precluding her from participating in Nevada's insurance market on substantially equal terms with resident agents, and a favorable decision invalidating the statute redresses that injury. Therefore, Restrepo has standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 680A.300, and having found standing, we do not consider whether the Council also has standing. Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993) ("The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others."). B. Mootness