Chicano Educ. Manpower Serv. v. Dept. Labor

5 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel. Kobach v. United States Dep't of Interior

    72 F.4th 1107 (10th Cir. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    The failure to apply the regulations rendered the Department's decision arbitrary and capricious. See Scott v. Barnhart, 297 F.3d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 2002) (concluding that an administrative law judge's action was unsupported because the judge hadn't discussed the critical regulations); Chicano Educ. and Manpower Servs. v. Dep't of Labor, 909 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that agencies must follow and discuss their own regulations).

  2. United States v. Scott

    705 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 112 times
    Holding that the government carries the burden of establishing the applicability of the automobile exception

    A party who fails to assert a waiver argument forfeits—and therefore implicitly waives—that argument. Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.2010); see also Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613, 618 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that an implicit waiver occurred when the party failed to “argue waiver [and] instead elected to address the issue on the merits”); Chicano Educ. & Manpower Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 909 F.2d 1320, 1328 & n.5 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that waiver was forfeited when “the Department [did not] make the waiver argument to the Secretary”). Scott has neither waived nor forfeited his waiver argument.

  3. Norwood v. Vance

    591 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 7 times

    Norwood waived the defendants' waiver by addressing the claim on the merits without also making a waiver argument. Cf. Chicano Educ. & Manpower Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 909 F.2d 1320, 1327-28 & n. 5 (9th Cir.1990) ("Yes, we are indeed holding that the Department has waived its right to argue that CEMS waived its right to ask for a waiver. ...").

  4. Norwood v. Vance

    591 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009)

    Norwood waived the defendants' waiver by addressing the `claim on the merits without also making a waiver argument. Cf. Chicano Educ. Manpower Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 909 F.2d 1320, 1327-28 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Yes, we are indeed holding that the Department has waived its right to argue that CEMS waived its right to ask for a waiver. . . . "). The dissent would have us raise the issue of waiver sua sponte and suggests that we have "discretion" not to reach defendants' qualified immunity claim. Dissent at 1076-77.

  5. University of Nevada v. Tarkanian

    110 Nev. 581 (Nev. 1994)   Cited 105 times
    Noting that trial courts have discretion to reduce attorneys' fees awards for “limited success”

    The primary difficulty with UNLV's argument is that Torres did not announce a general rule of appellate procedure; it was interpreting a specific rule of procedure. See Chicano Educ. Manpower Serv. v. Dept. of Labor, 909 F.2d 1320, 1329 (9th Cir. 1990). That rule, FRAP 3(c), places certain requirements on parties bringing an appeal.