The Ninth Circuit covers the federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 4,198 published rulings we track here (1973–2026), the breakdowns below show how they were decided. They describe published opinions only — not the odds of any particular situation.
Of the 4,198 published rulings we track in the Ninth Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 4,112 rulings we could classify by stage were decided.
A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
Of the 492 summary-judgment rulings here, 257 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 235 let the worker’s claims continue.
An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
A judge or jury heard the evidence and reached a decision. Relatively few disputes get this far.
The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.
A decision entered because one side did not respond to the case at all.
Procedural decisions and orders that do not fit the main stages above.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Ninth Circuit covers.
Leon Campbell v. Nevada Property 1 LLC
Wadler
Gustavo Estrada v. Douglas Gillespie
R.F. ex rel. Frankel v. Delano Union School District
Kevin Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
McArthur
Ware
Kenneth Bailey v. Union Bank Retirement Plan
James Chadam v. Palo Alto Unified Sch. Dist.
Saif Khorshed v. Paula Adams
Volis v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles Employees
Nncc
Wendell O'Neal v. Lynne Adams
Arendt v. Washington-Idaho-Montana Carpenters-Employers Retirement Trust Fund
National Labor Relations Board v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local Nos. 135, 324, 770, 1036, 1167, 1428, 1442 v. National Labor Relations Board
Fenske
Avila
James Fenske v. Service Employees Int'l Inc.
National Labor Relations Board v. Teamsters Union Local No. 70
Daniel Hansen v. Robinson Nevada Mining Co.
National Credit Union Administration Board v. RBS Securities, Inc.
Orr v. Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine
Georgina Martinez Quezada v. Loretta E. Lynch
Elinor Otto v. Employee Ret. Income Plan
In re Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions
Regional Local Union No. 846 v. Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc.
Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board
Rosemary Garity v. Apwu National Labor Org.
Rosemary Garity v. Apwu National Labor Org.
Anderson
Arizona ex rel. Brnovich v. Volkswagen AG
Quinton Brown v. Larry Adams
Western Sugar Cooperative v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 190
Jason Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding Ag
Adams
Illinois Union Insurance Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
Leight
Nat'l Credit Union Admin Board v. Goldman Sachs and Co
Joshua Shapiro v. America's Credit Union
Gomez
Kirchhof
Tedrow
Elizabeth Stevenson v. Abbott Laboratories
Jason Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding Ag
Dibs v. Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District
Edmund
Manuel Ramirez v. Escondido Union School Dist.
Linsey Adams v. Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
Gamage v. Nevada Ex Rel. Board of Regents of Higher Education
Showing 2,951–3,000 of 4,198 rulings · Page 60 of 84
Explore employment rulings from the other federal circuits.
These figures summarize publicly available published court opinions only. Published opinions over-represent summary-judgment rulings (decisions made without a trial) and appeals, because those are the stages where judges most often write formal opinions. Most workplace disputes settle privately and never appear here at all. A ruling’s outcome reflects many case-specific factors and is not a prediction for any other situation. Read more about how we source and classify rulings.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of outcomes and case stages is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.