Carol L. Baker, Esq. v. Bank of America, Nt & Sa

Ninth Circuit

Carol L. Baker, Esq. v. Bank of America, Nt & Sa

15 F.3d 1082, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6229, 1994 WL 5487

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 1994

Docket92-55847

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F.3d 1082 (Carol L. Baker, Esq. v. Bank of America, Nt & Sa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carol L. Baker, Esq. v. Bank of America, Nt & Sa, 15 F.3d 1082, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6229, 1994 WL 5487 (9th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

15 F.3d 1082
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Carol L. BAKER, Esq., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NT & SA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-55847.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 1993.
Decided Jan. 6, 1994.

Before: FLETCHER, PREGERSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Baker appeals the district court's refusal to give her proffered inference instructions. We assume Baker preserved her objections. Whether reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion, the instructions that were given properly and adequately set out the applicable law. See Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 817 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1047 (1988); Cancellier v. Federated Dept. Stores, 672 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 859 (1982); Kelly v. American Standard, Inc., 640 F.2d 974 (9th Cir.1981). The instructions that were refused would simply have set out permissible inferences. These inferences can be (and were) argued, Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1442 (9th Cir.1990), but the court is not required to include them in its instructions. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

15 F.3d 1082
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Carol L. BAKER, Esq., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NT & SA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-55847.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 1993.
Decided Jan. 6, 1994.

Before: FLETCHER, PREGERSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Baker appeals the district court's refusal to give her proffered inference instructions. We assume Baker preserved her objections. Whether reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion, the instructions that were given properly and adequately set out the applicable law. See Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 817 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1047 (1988); Cancellier v. Federated Dept. Stores, 672 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 859 (1982); Kelly v. American Standard, Inc., 640 F.2d 974 (9th Cir.1981). The instructions that were refused would simply have set out permissible inferences. These inferences can be (and were) argued, Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1442 (9th Cir.1990), but the court is not required to include them in its instructions. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F.3d 1082, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6229, 1994 WL 5487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carol-l-baker-esq-v-bank-of-america-nt-sa-ca9-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack