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

24 Citing cases

  1. F.D.I.C. v. Aaronian

    93 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that the registering court could consider whether the rendering court's judgment was void for due process violation

    Because the cognovit note deprives the debtor of notice that he is being sued, and of his right to a hearing, courts demand "clear and convincing evidence" that the written waiver was "voluntary, knowing, and intelligently made." Overmyer, at 185-86, 187 (assuming without deciding that the same standard of proof applies to waiver in the civil context as in criminal cases, and citing criminal cases); Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Overmyer, 405 U.S. at 187; Davies v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2892 (1991)). The question of waiver is factual.

  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. Coal. on Homelessness v. City of San Francisco

    22-cv-05502-DMR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2024)

    As Defendants did not assert that Coalition lacks standing, the court held “[t]he Coalition on Homelessness unquestionably has standing to pursue all forms of relief sought through this lawsuit.” It then denied the motion to dismiss the individual Plaintiffs for lack of standing, citing Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993), in which the Ninth Circuit held that “[t]he 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.” Coal. on Homelessness v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 22-CV-05502-DMR, 2023 WL 3637032, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2023)

  4. California v. Bureau of Alcohol

    20-cv-06761-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2023)

    In a multi-plaintiff suit, only one plaintiff need have standing in order for the case to proceed. Cf. 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.”).

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Living Ctr. of Southern Cal. v. Shewry

    543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 86 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under the Supremacy Clause on the basis of federal preemption need not assert a federally created ‘right,’ in the sense that term has been recently used in suits brought under § 1983, but need only satisfy traditional standing requirements”

    "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). In this case, we have no doubt that several of the petitioners, at least, have standing to challenge the implementation of AB 5.

  9. Natural Resources v. U.S. E.P.A

    526 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 37 times
    Vacating rule held to be unlawful under Chevron analysis

    NRDC, Amigos Bravos, and Powder River have demonstrated, to this Court's satisfaction, association standing under the broad standing requirement applicable here. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others). V. STANDARD OF REVIEW

  10. Oregon v. Ashcroft

    368 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court had jurisdiction under § 877 to review a rule that "orders sanctions for violations of its provisions"

    We need not decide whether the other plaintiffs also have standing. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993). However, we do note the argument by the plaintiff patients that the Ashcroft Directive, if followed, will achieve the in terrorem effect intended.