Case Citator › McLinn v. Fjord

McLinn v. Fjord

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
739 F.2d 1395
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
34 of 34
Citing cases (total)
34
Treatment dates
1987
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. McLinn v. Fjord was limited for appeals from Guam's local appellate court. The Ninth Circuit used a more deferential standard when reviewing that court's interpretation of Guam law.
More on how this was screened

Later courts continue to apply McLinn's rule of independent review for a federal district court's interpretation of state law. All 34 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

34 later cases cite McLinn v. Fjord; 34 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on McLinn v. Fjord?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Ninth Circuit declined to extend McLinn's independent review rule to the three judge Guam appellate division's interpretation of local law.

    Brown v. Civil Service Commission · Ninth Circuit · filed

    We agree with Brown that a more deferential standard of review is appropriate when we are reviewing Guam local law. Because the district court in Guam in this case was a three-judge panel, it is more akin to a federal court of appeals. It was able to engage in the “collaborative, deliberative process- of appellate courts [that] reduces the risk of judicial error on questions of law.” McLinn, 739 F.2d at 1398 (quoting United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed. 46 (1984)) Because the court in this case based its decision on an examination of local legislation and executive orders, we will uphold that decision unless it is manifestly erroneous.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads McLinn v. Fjord and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace