Atsushi Wallace Tashima

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit circuit Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 34 signed orders read

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Tinoso
· 2003-04-25
Appeal (appellant (defendant Federico Tinoso)) Granted

“REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.”

United States v. Verduzco
· 2003-05-30
Appeal (appellant (defendant Hector Verduzco)) Denied

“Accordingly, the judgment revoking supervised release and the sentence are AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Fifield
06-30171 · 2007-05-07
Appeal (appellant (defendant Blaine Travis Fifield)) Granted

“Sentence REMANDED.”

Wilcox v. Arpaio
12-16418 · 2014-06-02
Appeal (appellant (defendant Maricopa County)) Denied

“For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

Democratic Party of Hawaii v. Nago
13-17545 · 2016-08-15
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Democratic Party of Hawaii)) Denied

“The district court's grant of summary judgment to Nago is AFFIRMED.”

Okafor v. United States
14-17087 · 2017-01-13
Appeal (appellant (claimant Chike Okafor)) Denied

“Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of Okafor's Rule 41(g) motion.”

United States v. Davis
15-10402 · 2017-04-14
Appeal (appellant (defendant Ricky Davis)) Granted in part

“AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, sentence VACATED, and REMANDED.”

Miller v. City of Portland
14-35783 · 2017-08-22
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Roberta Miller)) Granted

“REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.”

United States v. Cate
19-30161 · 2020-08-21
Appeal (appellant (defendant Ryan Cate)) Denied

“The judgment and sentence on revocation of supervised release are AFFIRMED.”

Stone v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co.
19-16227 · 2020-11-09
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Suzanne Stone)) Denied

“The Plan's geographical limitation accordingly does not violate either the Federal Parity Act or the California Parity Act. The judgment is AFFIRMED.”

In the Matter of Garrett
20-35127 · 2020-12-02
Appeal (appellant (vessel owner Caleb Garrett)) Denied

“Because Garrett has not met the location test for navigable waters, we need not reach the connection test. The district court properly dismissed this action for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). AFFIRMED.”

Doe v. Regents of the University of California
17-56110 · 2018-06-06
Appeal (appellants (defendants The Regents of the University of California)) Granted

“The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss Doe's § 1094.5 writ claim with prejudice, but without prejudice to refiling in state court, and his § 1983, Title IX, and declaratory relief claims without prejudice. REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.”

Put Judge Tashima's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Tashima actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Tashima's own signed orders and cites them.