Case Citator › Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-Appellees

Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-Appellees

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

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
780 F.2d 823
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
76 of 76
Citing cases (total)
555
Treatment dates
1990
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles has been abrogated in part: all 76 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. displaced Zaldivar's three-tiered standard for appellate review of Federal Rule 11 sanctions with abuse-of-discretion review of all aspects of the determination.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court of Hawaii made a separate choice for Hawaii Rule 11, also shown below. The other citing opinions chiefly applied Zaldivar while repeating a history parenthetical about Cooter & Gell; those parentheticals are not new treatments.

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.

555 later cases cite Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-Appellees; 76 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 Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-Appellees?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Zaldivar's three-tiered appellate review standard for Rule 11 sanctions and required abuse-of-discretion review of all aspects of the district court's determination.

    Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has adopted the appropriate approach. That Circuit reviews findings of historical fact under the clearly erroneous standard, the determination that counsel violated Rule 11 under a de novo standard, and the choice of sanction under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Zaldivar v. Los Angeles, 780 F. 2d 823, 828 (1986). ... In light of our consideration of the purposes and policies of Rule 11 and in accordance with our analysis of analogous EAJA provisions, we reject petitioner’s contention that the Court of Appeals should have applied a three-tiered standard of review. Rather, an appellate court should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of a district court’s Rule 11 determination.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-Appellees 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