Harold C. Banks v. City of Palo Alto, Harold C. Banks v. City of Palo Alto

Ninth Circuit

Harold C. Banks v. City of Palo Alto, Harold C. Banks v. City of Palo Alto

944 F.2d 908

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 1992

Docket90-16479

StatusUnpublished

This text of 944 F.2d 908 (Harold C. Banks v. City of Palo Alto, Harold C. Banks v. City of Palo Alto) 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

Harold C. Banks v. City of Palo Alto, Harold C. Banks v. City of Palo Alto, 944 F.2d 908 (9th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

944 F.2d 908

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
HAROLD C. BANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PALO ALTO, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
HAROLD C. BANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PALO ALTO, et al., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 90-16479, 90-16482.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 10, 1991.*
Decided Sept. 12, 1991.
As Amended April 2, 1992.

Before CANBY and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and NIELSEN, District Judge.**

MEMORANDUM***

The district judge gave appellant detailed statements of pleading deficiencies and instructions on how to rectify them. He dismissed the case only when it was absolutely clear that the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Noll v Carlson, 809 F2d 1446 (9th Cir1987).

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

The Honorable William Fremming Nielsen, United States District Judge, Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation

***

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

944 F.2d 908

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
HAROLD C. BANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PALO ALTO, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
HAROLD C. BANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PALO ALTO, et al., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 90-16479, 90-16482.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 10, 1991.*
Decided Sept. 12, 1991.
As Amended April 2, 1992.

Before CANBY and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and NIELSEN, District Judge.**

MEMORANDUM***

The district judge gave appellant detailed statements of pleading deficiencies and instructions on how to rectify them. He dismissed the case only when it was absolutely clear that the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Noll v Carlson, 809 F2d 1446 (9th Cir1987).

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

The Honorable William Fremming Nielsen, United States District Judge, Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation

***

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)

944 F.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-c-banks-v-city-of-palo-alto-harold-c-banks--ca9-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack