DOW CHEMICAL CO. ET AL.

v.

ALFARO ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1993)
  …occasion, we have used both characterizations. See, e.g., United States v. Arvin, 900 F. 2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir.1990) (admission or exclu [*1410] sion of expert testimony “is reversible only for abuse of discretion or manifest error”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1024, 111 S.Ct. 672, 112 L.Ed.2d 664 (1991); Miller, 874 F. 2d at 1266 (“[w]e review ... decisions to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of discretion and reverse only for manifest error”); Christophe, 833 F. 2d at 1299 (“we reverse only if the…
• Wolfe v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 1025 (10th Cir. 1993)
  …e reject any notion that no support need be shown at the very early stages of pregnancy because the needs of the unborn child at that point are negligible. See Orsini ex rel. Orsini v. Sullivan, 903 F. 2d 1393, 1396-97 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1024, 111 S.Ct. 672, 112 L.Ed.2d 665 (1991). Support may be shown either by proof that contributions such as baby clothes or a crib were made to the unborn child, or that contributions such as food, shelter, or medical care were made to the mother. See…
• United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1993)
  …onymous letter, coupled with independent corroboration of predicted activity, even though innocent on its face, established probable cause. Id. at 244-46, 103 S.Ct. at 2335-36. In United States v. Alvarez, 899 F. 2d 833 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1024, 111 S.Ct. 671, 112 L.Ed.2d 663 (1991), we held that an anonymous phone tip predicting Alvarez’s activities, along with corroboration of those activities, established probable cause. Here, Detective O’Connell did provide some corroborative evidence…