Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Joy Tomas, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Winona Rubin, Individually and in Her Capacity As Directorof the Hawaii Department of Human Services; Catherine Jeancarman, Individually and in Her Capacity As Administrator Ofthe Hawaii Child Support Enforcement Agency, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 935 F.2d 1555
July 2, 1991
John Ishihara, Legal Aid Soc. of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas D. Farrell, Deputy Atty. Gen., and G. Cher Foerster, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendants-appellees.
Before SKOPIL, BEEZER and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of appellees' motion for rehearing, we clarify our opinion, Tomas v. Rubin, 926 F.2d 906 (9th Cir.1991), as follows:
In our opinion, we articulated a standard not previously applied by the Agencies in determining Tomas' cooperation. In light of the Agencies' "interest in applying [their] expertise, correcting [their] own errors, making a proper record, and maintaining an efficient, independent administrative system," see Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. CHG Int'l Inc., 811 F.2d 1209, 1223 (9th Cir.1987), it is appropriate to give the Agencies the opportunity to apply the correct standard at the level of the initial cooperation determination made on the facts of this case. If a new determination is adverse to Tomas, she may then either take advantage of the administrative and state court remedies available under Hawaii law or reapply for benefits, presenting any new evidence of cooperation that may have come to light since her initial application.
No further motion for reconsideration will be considered; the mandate shall issue upon filing this order. Petition DENIED.