FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8641561
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Muhammad v. Cordova

No. 8641561 · Decided June 12, 2007
No. 8641561 · Ninth Circuit · 2007 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 12, 2007
Citation
No. 8641561
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint. The Clerk shall file appellant’s motion for rehearing en banc or to stay the mandate, received on May 18, 2007. The motion for rehearing en banc or to stay the mandate is construed as a motion to reconsider and to reconsider en banc the court’s April 23, 2007 order. So construed, the motion to reconsider is granted, but the request for reconsideration en banc is denied as moot. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11. This appeal is reinstated. The Clerk shall file appellant’s opening brief, received on January 4, 2007. We have reviewed appellant’s response to the court’s March 15, 2007 order to show cause, the record, and the opening brief. We conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. All pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Muhammad v. Cordova in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 12, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8641561 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →