John M. Mosby v. John J. Casey

Ninth Circuit

John M. Mosby v. John J. Casey

77 F.3d 489, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 8058, 1996 WL 64900

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 1996

Docket94-56129

StatusUnpublished

This text of 77 F.3d 489 (John M. Mosby v. John J. Casey) 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

John M. Mosby v. John J. Casey, 77 F.3d 489, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 8058, 1996 WL 64900 (9th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

77 F.3d 489

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
John M. MOSBY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John J. CASEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-56129.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 8, 1996.
Decided Feb. 12, 1996.

Before: BEEZER, BRUNETTI, and JOHN T. NOONAN, JR., Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Casey appeals the district court's finding that the parties intended the written lease to be valid and intended to incorporate into the agreement the past practice of allowing Mosby to use the land for grazing and other activities. We review factual findings only for clear error and afford particular deference to the trial judge's credibility assessments. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Rozay's Transfer v. Local Freight Drivers, Local 208, 850 F.2d 1321, 1326 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 (1989). The district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

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

77 F.3d 489

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
John M. MOSBY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John J. CASEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-56129.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 8, 1996.
Decided Feb. 12, 1996.

Before: BEEZER, BRUNETTI, and JOHN T. NOONAN, JR., Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Casey appeals the district court's finding that the parties intended the written lease to be valid and intended to incorporate into the agreement the past practice of allowing Mosby to use the land for grazing and other activities. We review factual findings only for clear error and afford particular deference to the trial judge's credibility assessments. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Rozay's Transfer v. Local Freight Drivers, Local 208, 850 F.2d 1321, 1326 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 (1989). The district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 F.3d 489, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 8058, 1996 WL 64900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-m-mosby-v-john-j-casey-ca9-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack