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
Ronald Shepherd, on Behalf Of; and All in the State Ofarizona Similarly Situated; Rollin Barkley, on Behalf Of;and All in the State of Arizona Similarly Situated; Roberta. Bricker; Marion Rodgers, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Edward J. Derwinski, Administrator of the Veterans'administration, Defendant-appellee.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Rollin Barkley; Ronald Shepherd; Robert A. Bricker;marion Rodgers, Defendants-appellants
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 961 F.2d 132
Argued and Submitted Dec. 10, 1991.Decided April 1, 1992
James M. Ackerman, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.
Malcolm L. Stewart, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: NORRIS, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
In this appeal, we decide whether the Arizona anti-deficiency law is preempted by Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) regulations that authorize the VA to collect deficiencies on VA-guaranteed home loans. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 33-729 A, 33-814 G. Because the Arizona anti-deficiency law at issue here is identical to the Oregon anti-deficiency law we considered in Connelly v. Derwinski, 961 F.2d 129, 130 (9th Cir.1992), we hold, on the basis of that opinion, that Arizona's anti-deficiency law is preempted by 38 C.F.R. § 36.4323(e). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's summary judgment awarded to the Secretary of Veteran Affairs.
In a separate unpublished memorandum disposition, we also affirm the summary judgment against Barkley, who raised issues particular to his case.
AFFIRMED.