FRONTIER PROPERTIES ET AL.

v.

ELLIOTT ET AL.; AND ROSS V. STANDING COMMITTEE ON DISCIPLINE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Lawrence and next friend v. Chater, 516 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1996)
  …the lower court had no “opportunity” to apply them. Post, at 181. The dissent does not explain, however, why what the lower court had an “opportunity” to consider should be decisive, or how its “opportunity” is to be assessed. In Robinson v. Story, 469 U. S. 1081 (1984), we GVR’d for further consideration in light of a Supreme Court decision rendered almost three months before the summary affirmance by the Court of Appeals that was the subject of the petition for certiorari. Were those three months sufficien…
• Peabody v. Maud van Cortland Hill Schroll Tr., 892 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1989)
  …other hand, we have recognized that federal courts have a broader duty to the public, as well. Standing Comm. on Discipline v. Ross, 735 F,2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.) (citing Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265, 2 S.Ct. 569, 27 L.Ed. 552 (1883)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1081, 105 S.Ct. 583, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Here, it appears the district court was acting to further both objectives. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s taking judicial notice of Dombroski’s beha- [*778] viour, whether m state or fe…