The COVID Project
The record
- Level
- Legal authority
- Authority
- Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., 886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018) (slip opinion No. 16-35010)
- Issued
- 2018-03-28 Mar. 28, 2018
- In force
- Mar. 28, 2018 (no end date recorded; counted as in force for 120 days)
- Character
- case
Operative words
(b)... The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. (c)... The court: (1) may take judicial notice on its own; or (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information. (d)... The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding. (FRE 201)... We grant Kater's motion to take judicial notice of the slideshow, meeting minutes, and pamphlet because they are publicly available on the Washington government website, and neither party disputes the authenticity of the website nor the accuracy of the information. (Kater n.3)... It is appropriate to take judicial notice of this information, as it was made publicly available by government entities (the school districts), and neither party disputes the authenticity of the web sites or the accuracy of the information displayed therein. (Daniels-Hall at 998-99)... Although not every executive order discussed herein was entered into the record below, we may take judicial notice of their content. See, e.g., Union Cnty. Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 988 n.4 (3d Cir. 1983) (taking judicial notice of state executive orders). (Clark n.5)
Notes
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 985 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2021), slip op. at 7 n.1, and Brach v. Newsom, 6 F.4th 904 (9th Cir. 2021), slip op. at 15-16 n.5, took judicial notice of California COVID-19 orders (verified in prior runs, not re-read today); cite them only with their subsequent history (South Bay: 141 S. Ct. 716 (2021); Brach: vacated on rehearing en banc, 38 F.4th 6 (9th Cir. 2022)). I Health (Fed. Cl. July 23, 2026) treated California EOs N-25-20, N-33-20, N-60-20 and county orders as governmental orders on the pleadings (LAW-025 at 2-3).