United States v. Mayer

9th Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Citations: 560 F.3d 948, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8245, 2009 WL 650411

Decision Date: 3/16/2009

Docket Number: No. 07-30274

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: United States v. Mayer, 560 F.3d 948, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8245, 2009 WL 650411 (9th Cir. 2009)

More Cases: 9th Cir. decisions from 2009


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 70 decisions
70
Citing decisions
1
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

9
55
6
2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

9th Cir.50
N.D. Cal.3
1st Cir.2
3d Cir.2
7th Cir.2
D. Or.2
Most recently cited by10
  • 2026United States v. Aguilera 9th Cir.
  • 2025Cortes N.D. Cal.
  • 2025United States v. McKenzie 9th Cir.
  • 2024United States v. Hamper 9th Cir.
  • 2021United States v. Carlos Zavala-Huerta 9th Cir.
  • 2020United States v. Keith Hopkins 9th Cir.
  • 2019United States v. Thomas Franco 9th Cir.
  • 2019United States v. Michael Gaussiran 9th Cir.
  • 2019United States v. Michael Huntoon 9th Cir.
  • 2018United States v. Nelson McKee 9th Cir.
Cites 1 case
  • United States v. Mayer

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey Dale MAYER, Defendant-Appellant.

Judges

  • Before: RICHARD C. TALLMAN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Attorneys

  • Craig E. Weinerman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eugene, OR, for the defendant-appellant.
  • Frank R. Papagni, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Eugene, OR, for the plaintiff-appellee.
majority N.R. SMITH.

Order; Dissent to Order by Chief Judge KOZINKI; Opinion by

N.R. SMITH.

ORDER

The opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on June 30, 2008, and published at 530 F.3d 1099, is WITHDRAWN. The superseding opinion shall be filed concurrently with this order.

Having made the foregoing amendments to the opinion, all judges on the panel have voted to deny Defendant/Appellee’s Petition for Panel Rehearing, and so that petition is DENIED.

The full court has been advised of Defendant/Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc, and a judge of this court requested a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc; however, a majority of the active judges did not vote in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. RApp. P. 35. Accordingly, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.