1)  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:  Comedy III Produc-tions, Inc. v. New Line Cinema, 98-55301 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2000).  A clip from a public domain Three Stooges film that is used in a subsequent motion picture did not qualify as a "trademark" protectable under the Lanham Act after the original trademark on the film had expired.  O'Scannlain (author), Fernandez, and T.G. Nelson, Circuit Judges.  R. Benjamin of Los Angeles, CA, for the appellant;  S. Byrnes of Los Angeles, CA, for the appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

2)  BANKRUPTCY:  In re National Environmental Waste Corporation, 98-55597 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2000).  A state statute of limitations is extended for a corporation in reorganization by virtue of 11 USC Sec. 108 where recovery of the claim will substantially benefit the creditors of the estate, even though the claim is not explicitly specified in the plan of reorganization;  here, the debtor corporation's legal malpractice suit was not barred by the one-year California statute of limitations, Cal. C. Proc. Sec. 340.6, even though the action was not listed in the reorganization plan, as a recovery would accrue to the benefit of the creditors;  dissenting in part, Judge Pregerson thought a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the parties, an issues that should be decided by a jury.  Pregerson (dissenting in part), Noonan (author), and O'Scannlain, Circuit Judges.  W. Burd of Santa Ana, CA, for the appellants;  J. Cochran of Los Angeles, CA, for the appellees.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

3)  TAXATION / FRAUD:  USA v. Estate Preservation Services, 98-17220 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2000).  In an action under 28 USC Secs. 7408 to prevent a promoter from rendering abusive taxshelter advice, evidence that customers used the false information to violate the law is not required for the district court to preliminarily enjoin the practice.  Sneed (author) and Pregerson, Circuit Judges, and Carter, District Judge.  J. Izen of Bellaire, TX and J. Vaught of Oakland, CA, for the defendants-appellants;  J. Cohen of Washington, DC, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

4)  ERISA / TAXATION:  Cline v. The Industrial Mainte-nance Engineering & Contracting Co., 98-16025 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2000).  In an attempted class action brought to impose ERISA status and liability on an employee benefit plan, the USCA upheld the district court's summary judgments in favor of the defendants, finding that the employee benefit plan is an individual retirement annuity governed by the Internal Revenue Code at 26 USC Sec. 408, and not by Parts. 2 and 3 of Title I of ERISA.  Goodwin (author), Schroeder, and Alarcon, Circuit Judges.  D. Rosenfeld of Oakland, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants;  J. Baker of San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

5)  DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION:  Santa Maria v. Pa-cific Bell, 98-16437 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2000).  In an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff's reasonable reliance on fraudulent concealment is required for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel;  in addition, equitable tolling will not excuse the untimely filing of an EEOC charge by a plaintiff who within the time limit, knew or should have known of the existence of a possible disability discrimination claim;  dissenting, Judge Fletcher thought the majority had substituted its own judgment for that of the district court as to whether to grant or deny equitable estoppel while purporting to apply the abuse of discretion standard.  B. Fletcher (dissenting) and Silverman (author), Circuit Judges, and Stagg, District Judges.  J. Newman of San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  W. Wineberg of San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

6)  ERISA:  Rutledge v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, 98-15298 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2000).  ERISA completely preempts state law claims for the refund of excessive compensation paid to attorneys for pension plans.  O'Scannlain and Wardlaw (author), Circuit Judges, and Byrne, District Judge.  B. Ashe of San Francisco, CA, for the defendants-appellants;  S. Kornhauser of San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellees. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

 7)  ERISA:  Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Leslie G. Delbon Company, 98-16407 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2000).  Under ERISA, a union's failure to take enforcement action on its challenge to an employer's termination of contributions to an employee retirement plan entitled the em-ployer to treat the dispute as abandoned and its contribution obligation as concluded.  Goodwin, Schroeder (author), and Alarcon, Circuit Judges.  L. Jones of Oakland, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants;  D. Wilder of Burlingame, CA, for the defendant-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

8)  LABOR LAW:  Association of Civilian Technicians v. FLRA, 98-70838 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2000).  Section 8015 of the 1996 Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act repeals Secs. 7131 and 7102 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act as they are interpreted to permit DOD employees to use official time to lobby Congress on matters concerning working conditions.  Wiggins, O'Scannlain, and Hawkins (author), Circuit Judges.  D. Schember of Washington, DC, for the petitioner;  J. Hagley of Washington, DC, for the respondent;  D. Pennington of Carson City, NV, for the intervenor.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

9)  WORKERS' COMPENSATION:  Taylor v. OWCP, 98-71004 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2000).  A surviving spouse was not a "person entitled to compensation" under Sec. 33(f) of the Long-shore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act when she entered into third-party tort settlements prior to the death of her husband, the covered worker.  Aldisert (author), O'Scannlain, and Hawkins, Circuit Judges.  A. Burr of Oakland, CA, for the peti-tioner;  S. Oshinsky of Washington, DC, for the federal respondent;  R. Levy of San Francisco, CA, for the private respondent.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

10)  JURISDICTION:  Virgin v. County of San Luis Obispo, 98-55557 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2000).  Federal land patents and acts of Congress do not provide bases for federal question jurisdiction.  B. Fletcher, D.W. Nelson, and Brunetti, Circuit Judges.  Per Curiam.  W. Walter of San Luis Obispo, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants;  T. Winfield of Los Angeles, CA, for the defendants-appellees. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

11)  DISABILITY BENEFITS:  Gutierrez v. Apfel, 98-16462 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2000).  Where a colorable claim of mental impairment exists in a claim for disability benefits, an ALJ's failure to complete and attach a psychiatric review technique form to the decision requires remand to the Social Security Administration.  Goodwin, Schroeder (author), and Alarcon, Circuit Judges.  G. Kahn of San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant;  AUSA J. Baird of San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

12)  QUIET TITLE ACT / JURISDICTION:  Alaska v. USA, 96-36041 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2000).  In a state's action under the Quiet Title Act, the federal government could not avoid jurisdiction by refusing to admit or deny the state's allegation that it held title to a riverbed based on a prior administrative adjudication of navigability at the time of statehood in which the United States asserted a litigation position of non-navigability.  Reavley, Boochever, and Kleinfeld (author), Circuit Judges.  J. Dobbins of Washington, DC, for the defendants-appellants;  AAG J. Grace of Anchorage, AK, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

13)  EDUCATION LAW:  Burgert v. The Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 98-16238 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2000).  Neither the Native Hawaiian Education Act nor the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act create implied private rights of action.  D.W. Nelson, Kozinski, and W. Fletcher (author), Circuit Judges.  J. Cotchett of Burlingame, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant;  R. Fazio and W. McCorriston of Honolulu, HI, for the defendants-appellees. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

14)  GOVERNMENT LAW:  Baby Tam & Company v. Las Vegas, 99-16809 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2000).  A city business and zoning license scheme that does not set a time limit as to when judicial review of a denial of a license to operate an adult bookstore must be provided is unconstitutional on its face; dissenting, Judge Thompson thought the defects in the city's earlier licensing scheme had been cured.  Reinhardt, Noonan (author), and Thompson (dissenting), Circuit Judges.  M. Stein of Las Vegas, NV, for the plaintiff;  W. Henry of Las Vegas, NV, for the de-fendant. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

15)  FIRST AMENDMENT:  USA v. Griefen, 98-30158 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2000).  A Forest Service order closing an area of the forest where construction was scheduled to begin did not violate the First Amendment where it was in the interest of public safety and the protection of property, and narrowly tailored to leave ample opportunities for the public to lawfully express their views.  Leavy, Trott (author), and T.G. Nelson, Circuit Judges.  G. Smith of Spokane, WA, for the defendants-appellants; AUSA B. McHugh of Coeur d'Alene, ID, for the plaintiff-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

16)  IMMIGRATION LAW / CRIMINAL LAW:  USA v. Flores-Garcia, 99-50105 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2000).  In a federal prosecution for assisting an inadmissible alien felon to enter the United States in violation of 8 USC Sec. 1327, the defendant's knowledge of the alien's prior felony conviction is not an element of Sec. 1327.  D.W. Nelson, Beezer (author), and T.G. Nelson, Circuit Judges.  J. Knight of San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA S. Miller of San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.(Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

17)  QUALIFIED IMMUNITY:  Price v. Kramer, 97-56580 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2000).  Police officers waived their right to challenge a pretrial order denying them qualified immunity on appeal from a final judgment by failing to pursue an interlocutory appeal from that order.  D.W. Nelson, Reinhardt (author), and Trott, Circuit Judges.  R. Acciani of Torrance, CA, for the defendants;  A. Rubin of Los Angeles, CA, of Beverly Hills, CA, for the plaintiffs. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

18)  ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT:  USA v. Waites, 99-30037 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2000).  The federal Assimilative Crimes Act, as interpreted by Lewis v. USA, 523 U.S. 155 (1998), does not permit application of a state criminal trespass statute to trespass in a U.S. Post Office because federal regulations comprehensively regulate that conduct.  Aldisert (author), Kleinfeld, and W. Fletcher, Circuit Judges.  DFPD S. Sady of Portland, OR, for the defendant;  AUSA B. Sheldahl of Portland, OR, for the plaintiff.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

19)  CRIMINAL LAW:  USA Mack, 98-30195 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2000).  Individuals who refuse to voluntarily leave unlawful structures on National Forest land, with the intent of defending the structures to block logging operations, "maintain" those structures for purposes of 36 CFR Sec. 262.10(a).  Leavy, Trott (author), and T.G. Nelson, Circuit Judges.  G. Smith of Spokane, WA, for the defendants-appellants;  AUSA B. McHugh of Coeur d'Alene, ID, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

20)  SEARCH & SEIZURE:  USA v. Sandoval, 98-30130 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2000).  For purposes of determining whether a war-rantless search violated the Fourth Amendment, a camper had a subjective expectation of privacy in a tent located on Bureau of Land Management land, and that expectation was objectively reasonable even if the camper lacked permission to camp on the land.  Rymer, Hawkins (author), and McKeown, Circuit Judges.  G. Silvery of Boise, ID, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA M. Stiles of Boise, ID, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

21)  EVIDENCE / "CHAT ROOM" LOGS:  USA v. Tank, 98-10001 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2000).  In a prosecution under 18 USC Secs. 2251(a) and (d) and Secs. 2252(a) and (b)(1) for distributing child pornography via the Internet, the authenticity of incomplete computer-generated logs of "chat room" discussions can be established by evidence demonstrating how the logs were prepared, their accuracy in representing "chats," and their connection to the defendant.  Pregerson (author) and Wiggins, Circuit Judges, and Carter, District Judge.  S. Iriki of San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA D. West of San Jose, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

22)  WITNESSES:  USA v. Dixon, 98-50601 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2000).  In a federal criminal prosecution for bringing an illegal alien into the United States, the district court need neither exclude in-court identification testimony as unduly suggestive nor conduct an in-court lineup unless the defendant indicates a source for the alleged taint of the witness' prior identification.  Bright, Reinhardt, and Trott (author), Circuit Judges.  S. Clark of San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA J. Puleo of San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

23)  EVIDENCE:  USA v. Whitehead, 99-50200 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2000).  A district court's plain error in admitting evidence and argument regarding a defendant's post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence during the government's case-in-chief, and again in permitting the prosecutor to comment on this silence during closing argument, did not require reversal of his jury conviction where his guilt was overwhelmingly established by other admissible evidence.  Thomas, Silverman, and Wardlaw (author), Circuit Judges.  J. Burghardt of San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA J. Gomez of San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

24)  CRIMINAL LAW:  U.S. Postal Service v. Amada, 98-15589 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2000).  A lottery ticket pooling service, which invites the general public to purchase "participations" in pools of players and in turn purchases Arizona Lotto and Arizona Powerball Lottery tickets for each pool but which is not affiliated with either of the state lotteries, is itself not a "lottery" under the federal anti-lottery statute, 39 USC Sec. 3005.  Alarcon, O'Scannlain (author), Fernandez, Circuit Judges.  C. Buri of Phoenix, AZ, for the defendants-appellants;  J. Bison of Washington, DC, for the plaintiff-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

25)  SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS:  Page v. Torrey, 98-56526 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2000).  A person who is civilly com-mitted under California's Sexually Violent Predators Act is not a "prisoner" within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act and thus not subject to the Act's filing requirements;  the plaintiff in the instant case sought to file civil rights actions in forma pauperis against Atascadero State Hospital personnel;  he was not subject to the Act's requirement that he provide copies of his "prisoner trust fund" account statements, nor the requirement that he exhaust available administrative remedies..  B. Fletcher and Pregerson (author), Circuit Judges, and Weiner, District Judge.  M. Sylla of Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant;  no appearance for the defendant-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

26)  JURY INSTRUCTIONS:  USA v. Anderson, 98-50238 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2000).  In a federal prosecution for first-degree murder, the district court's failure to give a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter constituted clear error requiring reversal where the defendant's conviction for voluntary manslaughter had been based on less than overwhelming evidence and that evidence was consistent with the defense theory of an accidental killing.  Boochever (author) and T.G. Nelson, Circuit Judges, and Ware, District Judge.  K. Miller of Santa Ana, CA, and M. Lippman of La Jolla, CA, for the defendants-appellants;  AUSA M. Terrell of Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

27)  SENTENCING:  USA v. Palafox-Mazon, 99-10026 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2000).  Under the Guidelines, human "mules" who were separately hired to transport individual backpacks of marijuana from Mexico by following a guide to an unknown location within the United States were, for sentencing purposes, responsible for only the amount of contraband they individually carry, rather than for the total amount of contraband recovered from all the backpacks;  the mules did not undertake joint criminal activity within the meaning of Guideline Sec. 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).  Pregerson (author) and Wiggins, Circuit Judges, and Carter, District Judge.  AUSA A. Krauss of Tucson, AZ, for the plaintiff;  T. Hippert of Tucson, AZ, for the defendants. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

28)  PROBATION / SUPERVISED RELEASE:  USA v. Bahe, 99-10014 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2000).  A district court has the authority under 18 USC Sec. 3583(d) to impose conditions of supervised release, including confinement to a community treatment center or halfway house so that a defendant may receive specific rehabilitative treatment (in this case, treatment for sexual deviancy) following a term of imprisonment.  Pregerson (author) and Wiggins, Circuit Judges, and Carter, District Judge.  AFPD J. Sands of Phoenix, AZ, for the defendant-appellant;  E. Collery of Washington, DC, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/)  

29)  HABEAS CORPUS:  Park v. California, 96-56750 (9th Cir. Filed Jan. 14, 1999; withdrawn and new opinion filed Jan. 21, 2000).  A federal habeas corpus petitioner did not procedurally default his Brady and speedy trial claims where the state procedural rule failed to provide "an adequate and independent state law basis" on which the state court could deny relief.. Hug, B. Fletcher, and Trott (author), Circuit Judges.  S. Bunzel of San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner-appellant;  C. Henry of Los Angeles, CA, for the respondents-appellees.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

30)  HABEAS CORPUS / CAPITAL CASES: Ashmus v. Woodford, 99-99007 (9th Cir. Filed Jan. 24, 2000).  Although California sought to opt in to the procedural advantages of Chapter 154 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act with respect to the petition for federal habeas corpus filed in this case, it failed to demonstrate its compliance with the unambiguous requirements of that Act;  specifically, during all times relevant to this appeal, and at least until 1998, it failed to establish "by rule of its court of last resort or by statute" a mechanism for the appointment and compensation of collateral counsel for its death-sentenced prisoners;  it also failed to provide mandatory and binding standards of competency for collateral counsel in a rule of court or statute. Canby (author), Thompson, and Graber, Circuit Judges.  R. Matthias of San Francisco, CA, for the respondent-appellant;  M. Laurence of San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

31)  PRISONERS' RIGHTS:  Resnick v. Hayes, 98-15704 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2000).  A federal prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated due to his confinement in disciplinary segregation pending a hearing on a charge that ultimately was not sustained;  under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff by virtue of being a convicted prisoner, had no liberty interest in not being confined in disciplinary segregation and thus was not entitled to a hearing before being placed in such confinement, and thus any delay in providing him a hearing and any defects in that hearing did not deprive him of his due process for Fourth Amendment rights.  Goodwin, Schroeder, and Graber (author), Circuit Judges.  H. Slavitt of San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant;  no appearance for the defendants-appellees. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/)