Evidence: Federal Testimonial Privilege: Ninth Circuit Holds That There Is No Dangerous-Person Exception to the Federal Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege. United States v. Chase, 340 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003) (En banc)

On August 8, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Bakalian v. Central Bank of Republic of Turkey, Case No. 13-55664. In this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensation from the Republic of Turkey and two Turkish national banks for lands that they claim were unlawfully confiscated from their ancestors during what the Court refers to as the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923. In 2006, California adopted a statute extending the statute of limitations for claims arising out of the Armenian Genocide to December 31, 2016. Thus, the claims filed by the plaintiffs in 2010 were not time-barred under the statute; however, the panel found that since the Court had previously found the statute to be unconstitutional, no statute existed to extend the statute of limitations and therefore the claims were time-barred. The panel held that since the claims were plainly time-barred, the Court need not address legal questions posed regarding Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act jurisdiction.

Download Full-text

United States (U.S.) Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Gherebi v. Bush and Rumsfeld

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/s0020782900007816 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 43 (2) ◽

pp. 381-409

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Ninth Circuit ◽

Court Of Appeals

Download Full-text

Bonnichsen v. United States: Time, Place, and the Search for Identity

International Journal of Cultural Property ◽

10.1017/s0940739105050149 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 249-263 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Sarah Harding

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Cultural Identity ◽

The United States ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Native Hawaiians ◽

Ninth Circuit ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

Clash Of Cultures ◽

Definition Of ◽

Charged Case

On its surface, Bonnichsen v. United States is an administrative law case, reviewing a decision by the Secretary of the Interior regarding the appropriate reach of a specific set of legislative and regulatory rules. As such, Judge Gould, writing for a panel of the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) decided that the secretary's office had overstepped its bounds; in short, its interpretation of the rules in question was not reasonable. But underneath the legal categories, Bonnichsen is a much more complicated and politically charged case. It is about competing conceptions of history and spirituality. It is about sovereignty (although that word is not uttered once in the decision, aside from reciting a definition of Native Hawaiians) and the clash of cultures. It is less about the standards for decision making and more about who the appropriate decision makers are. It is a case about a man who lived 9,000 years ago and about how today we should understand his cultural identity.

Download Full-text