text:
B. Ghaderi, V. Nayyeri, M. Soleimani and O. M. Ramahi, “Multi-Polarization Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting with High Efficiency,” in press, IET Microwaves, Antennas and Propagation.
A. Ashoor and O. M. Ramahi, “Polarization Independent Cross-Dipole Energy Harvesting Surface,” in press, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques.
R. Ramzan, M. Omar, O. Siddiqui and O. M. Ramahi, “Energy Tunneling – A Way to Achieve Highly Sensitive Material Detection with Sub-Wavelength Resolution,” in press, IEEE MTT Magazine.
M. Saadat-Safa, V. Nayyeri, M. Khanjarian, M. Soleimani and O. M. Ramahi, “A CSRR Based Sensor for Full Characterization of Magneto-Dielectric Materials,” accepted for publication, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques.
S-M. Sadrpour, V. Nayyeri, M. Moradi, M. Soleimani and O. M. Ramahi, “A 3D Hybrid Implicit Explicit Single-Field Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method,” in press, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility.
M. A. Aldhaeebi, T. S. Almoneef, A. Ali, Z. Ren, and O. M. Ramahi, “Near Field Breast Cancer Detection Using Ultra-Narrow Band Probe with Machine Learning Techniques,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 8, No. 12607, (2018).
B. Ghaderi, V. Nayyeri, M. Soleimani and O. M. Ramahi, “Pixelated Metasurface for Dual-Band and Multi-Polarization Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 8, No. 13227 (2018).
M. El Badawe and O. M. Ramahi, “Efficient Metasurface Rectenna for Electromagnetic Wireless Power Transfer and Energy Harvesting,” Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 161, pp. 35–40, 2018.
A. Z. Ashoor, T. S. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “A Planar Dipole Array Surface for Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting and Wireless Power Transfer,” IEEE Transaction on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 1553-1560, March 2018.
T. S. Almoneef, F. Erkmen, M. A. Alotaibi and O. M. Ramahi, “A New Approach to Microwave Rectennas using Tightly Coupled Antennas,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 1714-1724, April 2018.
F. Erkmen, T. S. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “Scalable Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting using Frequency Selective Surfaces,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory and Tech., Vol. 66, No. 5, pp. 2433-2441, May 2018. Featured in IEEE Microwave Newsletter, 21 March 2018 (only five papers featured in the newsletter).
M. Feizi, V. Nayyeri and O. M. Ramahi, “Modeling Magnetized Graphene in the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method using an Anisotropic Surface Boundary Condition,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 233-241, Jan. 2018.
T. S. Almoneef, F. Erkmen, and O. M. Ramahi, “Harvesting the Energy of Multi-Polarized Electromagnetic Waves,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 7, No. 14656, (2017). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-15298-5.
M-J. Haji-Ahmadi, V. Nayyeri, M. Soleimani and O. M. Ramahi, “Pixelated Checkerboard Metasurface for Ultra-Wideband Radar Cross Section Reduction,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 7, No. 11437 (2017). doi:10.1038/srep28626.
H. Sun, B. Tao and O. M. Ramahi, “Offset-Fed Folded Dipole and Its Application as RFID Tag Antenna,” IEEE Journal of Radio Frequency Identification, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 109-114, June 2017.
T. S. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “Dual-Polarized Multi-Band Infrared Energy Harvesting Using H-Shaped Metasurface Absorber,” Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, Vol. 76, pp. 1–10, 2017.
A. Alighanbari, R. Hajitashakori, and O. M. Ramahi, “Curved Coupled Line Resonators for Microwave Filter Applications,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 59, pp. 2012–2016, August 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/mop.30662.
S-M. Sadrpour, V. Nayyeri, M. Soleimani, and O. M. Ramahi, “A New Efficient Unconditionally Stable Finite-Difference Time-Domain Solution of the Wave Equation,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 65, No. 6, pp. 3114-3121, Jun 2017. Erratum, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 65, No. 11, pp. 6197, Nov. 2017.
S. M. Rouzegar, A. Alighanbari and O. M. Ramahi, “Wideband Uniplanar Artificial Magnetic Conductors Based on Curved Coupled Microstrip Line Resonators,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 326-328, April 2017.
M. El Badawe, T. S. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “A Metasurface for Conversion of Electromagnetic Radiation to DC,” AIP Advances, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 035112-10, 2017; doi: 10.1063/1.4978321.
D. Alsaedi, M. Irannejad, K. H. Ibrahim, A. Almutairi, O. M. Ramahi and M. Yavuz, “High-Responsivity Reduced Graphene Oxide Gel Photodetectors for Visible-Light Detection with large Detection Area and End-Contact Interface,” Journal of Material Chemistry C, Vol. 5, pp. 882-888, 2017.
H. Sun, B. Tao and O. M. Ramahi, “Proximity Coupled Cavity Backed Patch Antenna for Long Range UHF RFID Tag,” IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 64, No. 12, pp. 5446-5449, Dec. 2016.
M. Ruphuy and O. M. Ramahi, “Cost-Effective Monostatic Cloaking,” Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 120, pp. 185303-5, Nov. 2016. doi: 10.1063/1.4967160.
A. Ali, M. El Badawe and O. M. Ramahi, “Microwave Imaging of Subsurface Flaws in Coated Metallic Structures Using Complementary Split-Ring Resonators,” IEEE Journal of Sensors, Vol. 16, No. 18, pp. 6890-6898, July 2016. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2016.2587738.
M. Ruphuy and O. M. Ramahi, “Spherical Aberration in Electrically-Thin Flat Lenses,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 1531-1536, August 2016.
O. Siddiqui, R. Ramzan, M. Amin and O. M. Ramahi, “Non-Invasive Phase Sensor for Permittivity and Moisture Estimation Based on Anomalous Dispersion,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 6, No. 28626 (2016). doi:10.1038/srep28626.
A. Ali, A. Moomen and O. M. Ramahi, “Reducing Sweeping Frequencies in Microwave NDT Employing Machine Leaning Feature Selection,” Sensors. Vol. 16, No. 559, 2016. doi:10.3390/s16040559.
T. Almoneef, H. Sun and O. M. Ramahi, “A 3-Dimensional Folded Dipole Antenna Arrays for Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting,” IEEE Antenna and Wireless Propagation Letters, Vol. 15, pp. 1406-1409, 2016.
K. Alzoubi, Z. Alguraan, and O. M. Ramahi, “Portable Automated Oxygen Administration System for Hypoxaemic Patients,” SpringerPlus Journal of Medical Systems, Vol. 5, No. 470, 2016.
M. Ruphuy and O. M. Ramahi, “Refraction in Electrically-thin Inhomogeneous Media,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 538-543, April 2016.
M. El Badawe, T. S. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “A True Metasurface Antenna,” Scientific Reports, Vol. 6, 19268; doi: 10.1038/srep19268 (2016).
B. Alavikia, T. S. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “Wideband Resonator Arrays for Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting and Wireless Power Transfer,” Applied Physics Letters. Vol. 107, pp. 243902-5, 2015.
A. Ashoor and O. M. Ramahi, “Dielectric Resonator Antennas for Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting,” Progress in Electromagnetic Research C, Vol. 59, pp. 89–99, 2015.
B. Tao, H. Sun and O. M. Ramahi, “RFID Tag Antennas for Metallic and non-Metallic Surfaces,” Progress in Electromagnetic Research C, Vol. 59, pp. 51–57, 2015.
L. R. Ramzan, O. Siddiqui, A. Nauroze, and O. M. Ramahi, “A Microstrip Probe Based on Electromagnetic Energy Tunneling for Extremely Small and Arbitrarily Shaped Dielectric Samples,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Waves Letters, Vol. 14, pp. 1554-1556, 2015.
B. Alavikia, T. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “Complementary Split Ring Resonator Arrays for Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting,” Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 107, pp. 033902-5, July 2015.
B. Alavikia, A. Kabiri and O. M. Ramahi, “Poynting Theorem Constraints on the Signs of the Imaginary Parts of the Electromagnetic Constitutive Parameters: Reply to Comment,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1566-01, August 2015.
A. Ali, B. Hu and O. M. Ramahi, “Intelligent Detection of Cracks in Metallic Surfaces using Waveguide Sensor Loaded with Metamaterial Elements,” Sensors, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 11402-11416, May 2015.
T. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “Metamaterial Electromagnetic Energy Harvester with Near Unity Efficiency,” Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 106, pp. 153902-4, April 2015. (APL Editor’s Pick for 2015; featured in APL press release that was covered by 14 technology news outlets around the world; most read article in APL for the month of May 2015. One of the Most Read Paper in APL for 2016).
O. Siddiqui, M. Kashanianfard and O. M. Ramahi, “Dielectric Sensors Based on Electromagnetic Energy Tunneling,” Sensors, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 7844-7856, 2015.
T. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “Split-Ring Resonator Arrays for Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting,” Progress in Electromagnetic Research B, Vol. 62, pp. 167–180, 2015.
B. Alavikia, A. Kabiri, and O. M. Ramahi, “Poynting Theorem Constraints on the Sign of the Imaginary Parts of the Electromagnetic Constitutive Parameters,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A. Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 522-532, April 2015.
M. Ruphuy and O. M. Ramahi, “Analytical Models for Electrically Thin Flat Lenses and Reflectors,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 507–513, April 2015.
A. Kabiri and O. M. Ramahi, “Generic Building Blocks for Construction of Artificial Magnetic Media,” Progress in Electromagnetic Research B, Vol. 62, pp. 17–28, 2015.
A. Albishi and O. M. Ramahi, “Detection of Surface and Subsurface Cracks in Metallic and non-Metallic Materials using Complementary Split-Ring Resonator,” Sensors, Vol. 14, No. 10, pp. 19354-19370; Oct. 1, 2014.
Z. Ren, A. Kabiri and O. M. Ramahi, “Detection of Localized Magnetostatic Surface Resonant Spheres,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 50, No. 10, Oct. 2014.
M. AlShareef and O. M. Ramahi, “Electrically Small Particles Combining Even- and Odd-Mode Currents for Microwave Energy Harvesting,” Applied Physics Letters. Vol. 104, pp. 253906-4; doi: 10.1063/1.4885776.
M. Bait-Suwailam, B. Alavikia, and O. M. Ramahi, “Reduction of Electromagnetic Radiation From Apertures and Enclosures Using Electromagnetic Bandgap (EBG) Structures,” IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 929-937, May 2014.
T. S. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “A 3-Dimensional Stacked Metamaterial Array for Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting,” Progress in Electromagnetic Research, Vol. 146, pp. 109–115, 2014.
M. Alshareef and O. M. Ramahi, “Energy Harvesting in the Microwaves Spectrum Using Electrically Small Resonator,” International Congress on Energy Efficiency and Energy Related Materials (ENEFM2013), Springer Proceedings in Physics, Vol. 155, pp 265-272, May 2014.
V. Nayyeri, M. Soleimani and O. M. Ramahi, “A Method to Model Thin Conductive Layers in the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 385-392, April 2014.
B. Hu, Z. Ren, M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Waveguide Probe Loaded with Split Ring Resonators for Crack Detection in Metallic Surfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Microwaves Theory and Techniques, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 871-878, April 2014.
B. Alavikia, T. S. Almoneef and O. M. Ramahi, “Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting using Complementary Split-Ring Resonators,” Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 104, No. 16, pp. 163903-4, 2014.
M. Alhazmi, F. Aydinoglu, B. Cui, O. M. Ramahi, M. Irannejad, A. Brzezinski and M. Yavuz, “NSTOA-13-RA-108 Comparison of the Effects of Varying of Metal Electrode in Metal-Insulator-Metal Diodes with multi-dielectric layers,” Austin J Nanomed Nanotechnol, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-4, 2014.
F. Aydinoglu, M. Alhazmi, B. Cui, O. M. Ramahi, and M. Yavuz, “Higher Performance Metal-Insulator- Metal Diodes using Multiple Insulator Layers,” Austin J Nanomed Nanotechnol, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-3, 2014.
M. Ruphuy, Z. Ren and O. M. Ramahi, “Flat Far-Field Lenses and Reflectors,” Progress in Electromagnetic Research M, Vol. 34, pp. 163-170, 2014.
B. Mohajer-Iravani and O. M. Ramahi, “On the Suppression band and bandgap of Planar Electromagnetic Bandgap (EBG) Structures,” International Journal of Antennas and Propagation. Vol. 2014, Article ID 164107, 11 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/164107.
V. Nayyeri, M. Soleimani and O. M. Ramahi, “Wideband Modeling of Graphene using the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. Vol. 61, No. 12, pp. 6107-6114, Dec. 2013.
M. AlShareef and O. M. Ramahi, “Electrically Small Resonators for Energy Harvesting in the Infrared Regime,” J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 114, pp. 223101-5, 2013.
V. Nayyeri, M. Soleimani and O. M. Ramahi, “Modeling of Graphene as a Conducting Sheet in the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method,” IEEE Transaction on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 61, No. 8, pp. 4176-4181, Aug. 2013.
H. Attia, O. Siddiqui and O. M. Ramahi, “Beam Tilting of Single Microstrip Antenna using High Permittivity Superstrate,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 55, No. 7, July 2013.
A. Kabiri and O. M. Ramahi, “Design Methodology for Synthesizing Artificial Magnetic Materials using Generic Broken Loops,” Progress in Electromagnetic Research, Vol. 140, pp. 125-129, 2013.
M. Bait-Suwailam, L. Yousefi, B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Analytical Models for Predicting the Effective Permittivity of Complementary Split-Ring Resonators,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 55, No. 7, pp. 1565-1569, July 2013.
M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Non-Destructive Thickness Measurement using Quasi-Static Resonators,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 217-219, April 2013.
B. Alavikia, N. Soltani and O. M. Ramahi, “An Efficient Two-Dimensional Finite-Difference Frequency-Domain Method for Switching Noise Analysis in Multi-layer Boards,” IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 841-848, May 2013.
H. Attia, O. Siddiqui, N. Suwan and O. M. Ramahi, “Analytical and experimental study of gain enhancement in antenna arrays covered with high index metamaterial superstrate,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 215–218, Jan. 2013.
O. M. Ramahi, T. Almoneef, M. AlShareef and M. S. Boybay, “Metamaterial Particles for Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting,” Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 101, No. 17, pp. 173903-8, 2012.
M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Material Characterization using Complementary Split-Ring Resonators,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentations and Measurements, Vol. 61, No. 11, pp. 3039-3046, Nov. 2012. Erratum to “Material Characterization Using Complementary Split-Ring Resonators,” IEEE Transaction on Instrumentation and Measurements, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp. 1866, June 2013.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Electromagnetic Scattering from Finite and Infinite Array of Two-Dimensional Overfilled Cavities in a Conductive Surface using a Hybrid Finite Element-Surface Integral Equation Method,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, Vol. 29, No. 11, pp. 2444-2450, Nov. 2012.
A. Albishi, M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Complementary Split-Ring Resonator for Crack Detection in Metallic Surfaces,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 330-332, June 2012.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Coupling Interactions in Electromagnetic Scattering from Finite Array of Cavities with Stratified Dielectric Coating,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 1132-1140, June 2012.
M. Bait-Suwailam and O. M. Ramahi, “Ultrawide band mitigation of simultaneous switching noise and EMI reduction in high-speed PCBs using complementary split-ring resonators,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 389-396, April 2012.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Electromagnetic Scattering from Cylindrical Objects above a Conductive Surface using a Hybrid Finite-Element Surface Integral Equation Method,” The Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 28, No. 12, pp. 2510-2518, Dec. 2011.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Hybrid finite element-boundary integral algorithm to solve the problem of scattering from finite array of cavities with multi-layer stratified dielectric coating,” The Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 28, No. 10, pp. 2092-2099, October 2011.
H. Attia, L. Yousefi and O. M. Ramahi, “High Gain Patch Antennas Loaded with High Characteristic Impedance Superstrates,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, Vol. 10, pp. 858–861, Aug. 2011.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Semi-Analytic Solution to the Problem of Scattering from Multiple Cylinders above a Perfectly Conductive Surface,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 1489-1495, July 2011.
B. Yang, X. Shao, N. Goldsman, O. M. Ramahi, and P. N. Guzdar, “Investigation of the On-Chip MISM Interconnects with the Alternating-Direction-Implicit Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 53, No. 7, pp. 1582-1585, July 2011.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Hybrid finite element-boundary integral algorithm to solve the problem of scattering from finite and infinite array of cavities with stratified dielectric coating,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, A, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 1022-1031, June 2011.
M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Open-Ended Coaxial Line Probes with Negative Permittivity Materials,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 59, No. 5, pp. 1765-1769, May 2011.
H. Attia, L. Yousefi and O. M. Ramahi, “Analytical Model for Calculating the Radiation Field of Microstrip Antennas with Artificial Magnetic Superstrates: Theory and Experiment,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 59, No. 5, pp. 1438-1445, May 2011.
Z. Ren, M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Near-Field Probes for Sub-surface Detection using Split-Ring Resonators,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 488-495, Feb. 2011.
L. Yousefi, M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Characterization of Metamaterial using a Strip Line Fixture,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 1245-1253, April, 2011.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “An Efficient Method using Finite Elements and the Surface Integral Equation to Solve the Problem of Scattering from Infinite Periodic Conducting Grating,” Radio Science, Vol. 46, RS1001, doi:10.1029/2010RS004466, 2011.
O. Siddiqui and O. M. Ramahi, “A Novel Dielectric Detection System Based on Wire-loaded Waveguides,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 113-115, Feb. 2011.
H. Attia, M. Bait-Suwailam, and O. M. Ramahi, “Enhanced Gain Planar Inverted-F Antenna with Metamaterial Superstrate for UMTS Applications,” PIERS ONLINE, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 585-588, 2010.
H. Attia, O. F. Siddiqui, O. M. Ramahi, “Artificial magneto-superstrates for gain and efficiency improvement of microstrip antenna arrays,” PIERS ONLINE, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 555-558, 2010.
A. Kabiri, Q. He, M. H. Kermani and O. M. Ramahi, “Design of a Controllable Delay Line,” IEEE Transactions on Advanced Packaging, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 1080-1087, Nov. 2010.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Fundamental Limitation on the use of Open-Region Boundary Conditions and Matched Layers to Solve the Problem of Gratings in Metallic Screen,” Journal of the Applied Computational Electromagnetic Society, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp. 652-658, August 2010.
M. Bait-Suwailam and O. M. Ramahi, “Mutual Coupling Reduction Between Axial-Mode Helical Antennas using Single-Negative (SNG) Magnetic Metamaterials, The Journal of Engineering Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 59-68, 2010.
M. Bait-Suwailam, O. Siddiqui and O. M. Ramahi, “Mutual Coupling Reduction between Microstrip Patch Antennas using Slotted Complementary Split-Ring Resonators,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, pp. 876 – 878, Vol. 9, 2010.
M. Bait-Suwailam, M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Electromagnetic Coupling Reduction in High-Profile Antennas using Single-Negative (SNG) Metamaterials for MIMO Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 58, No. 9, pp. 2894 – 2902, Sept. 2010.
O. Siddiqui, M. Kashanianfard and O. M. Ramahi, “Frequency-Selective Energy Tunneling in Wire-Loaded Narrow Waveguide Channels,” PIER Letters, Vol. 15, pp. 153-161, 2010.
L. Yousefi and O. M. Ramahi, “Artificial Magnetic Material using Fractal Hilbert Curves,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 58, No. 8, pp. 2614 – 2622, August 2010.
A. Kabiri, L. Yousefi and O. M. Ramahi, “On the Fundamental Limitations of Artificial Magnetic Materials,” IEEE Transaction on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 58, No. 7, pp. 2345-2353, July 2010.
L. Yousefi and O. M. Ramahi, “Miniaturized Antennas using Artificial Magnetic Materials with Fractal Hilbert Inclusions,” Electronics Letters., Vol. 46, No. 12, pp. 816-817, June 2010.
S. Shahparnia, B. Mohajer-Iravani and O. M. Ramahi, “Prediction of the Gap in Electromagnetic Band-Gap Structures in a Parallel-Plate Waveguide Environment,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 52, No. 8, pp. 1792-1795, May 2010.
S. S. Abdallah, A. Iolov, K. Bizheva and O. M. Ramahi, “Effect of numerical dispersion on the FDTD solution of light scattering from photoreceptor cells,” Journal of the Applied Computational Electromagnetic Society. Vol. 25, No. 5, May 2010.
M. Bait-Suwailam and O. M. Ramahi, “Simultaneous Switching Noise Mitigation in High-Speed Circuits using Complementary Split-Ring Resonators,” Electronics Letters, Vol. 46 No. 8, p.563–564, April 2010.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Electromagnetic scattering from multiple sub-wavelength apertures in metallic screens using the surface integral equation method,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 815-826, March 2010.
B. Mohajer-Iravani and O. M. Ramahi, “Wideband circuit models for EBG structures,” IEEE Transactions on Advanced Packaging, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 169-179, Feb. 2010.
M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Experimental and numerical study of sensitivity improvement in near field probes using single negative media,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. Vol. 57, No. 12, pp. 3427-3433, Dec. 2009.
M. H. Attia, L. Yousefi, M. B. Suwailam, M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Enhanced Gain Microstrip Antenna using Artificial Magnetic Superstrates,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, Vol. 8, pp. 1198-1201, 2009.
A. Kabiri, M. M. Bait-Suwailam, M. H. Kermani, and O. M. Ramahi, "The effect of loss-tangent on laddering behavior in delay lines," Progress in Electromagnetic Research Letters, Vol. 12, pp. 161-170, 2009.
M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Waveguide Probes using Single Negative Media,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 19, No. 10, pp. 541-643, Oct. 2009.
F. Seydou, O. M. Ramahi and T. SeppÄanen, “Finite-size annular photonic crystals: Numerical computation and analysis of the bandgap,” Journal of Engineering Mathematics, Vol. 65, pp. 243-255, July 2009.
B. Alavikia and O. M. Ramahi, “Finite-element solution of the problem of scattering from cavities in metallic screens using the surface Integral Equation as a boundary constraint,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 1915-1925, Sept. 2009.
F. Seydou, T. SeppÄanen and O. M. Ramahi, “Computation of the Helmholtz Eigenvalues in a class of chaotic cavities using the multipole expansion approach,” IEEE Transaction on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 1169-1177, April 2009.
M. H. Kermani and O. M. Ramahi, “Theory, Analytical Investigation, and Performance of the Complementary Derivatives Method for Reducing Reflection Errors from Multi-Grid Domains in Finite-Difference Methods,” Radio Science. Vol. 44, March 2009.
L. Yousefi, H. Attia and O. M. Ramahi, “Broadband Experimental Characterization of Artificial Magnetic Materials based on a Microstrip Line Method,” Progress in Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 90, pp.1-13, 2009.
M. S. Boybay and O. M. Ramahi, “Near-field Probes using Single and Double Negative Media,” Physical Review E, No. 79, pp. 016602, 2009.
T. Kamgaing and O. M. Ramahi, “Spiral-Based Electromagnetic Band-Gap Structures for Applications in Small Form Factor Multichip Module Packages,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 56, No. 10, pp. 2293-2300, Oct. 2008.
M. Fakharzadeh, O. M. Ramahi, S. Safavi-Naeini, and S. K. Chaudhuri, “Design and Analysis of Meandering Photonic Crystals Delay Lines,” IEEE Transactions on Advanced Packaging, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 311-319, May 2008.
X. Wu, D. Cullen, G. Brist and O. M. Ramahi, “Surface finish effects on high speed signal degradation,” IEEE Transaction on Advanced Packaging, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 182-189, Feb. 2008.
B. Mohajer-Iravani and O. M. Ramahi, “Suppression of EMI and Electromagnetic Noise in Packages using Embedded Capacitance and Miniaturized Electromagnetic Bandgap Structures with high-k Dielectrics,” IEEE Transaction on Advanced Packaging, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 776-788, Nov. 2007.
M. H. Kermani and O. M. Ramahi, “Application of the Complementary Derivatives Method in the ADI-FDTD Solution of Maxwell’s Equations,” IEEE Transaction on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 55, No. 8, pp. 2294-2301, Aug. 2007.
J. Qin, O. M. Ramahi and V. Granatstein, Novel planar electromagnetic bandgap structures for wideband noise suppression and EMI reduction in high speed circuits,” IEEE Transaction on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 661-669, Aug. 2007.
L. Yousefi, B. Mohajer-Iravani and O. M. Ramahi, “Enhanced Bandwidth Artificial Magnetic Ground Plane for Low-Profile Antennas,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, Vol. 6, pp. 289-292, June 2007.
S. Shahparnia and O. M. Ramahi, “Design, implementation and testing of miniaturized electromagnetic bandgap structures for broadband switching noise mitigation in high-speed PCBs,” IEEE Transactions on Advanced Packaging, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 171-179 May 2007.
F. Seydou, O. M. Ramahi, R. Duraiswami and T. SeppÄanen, “Numerical computation of the Green's function for two-dimensional finite-size photonic crystals of infinite length,” Optics Express. vol. 14, No. 23, pp. 11362-11371, Nov. 13, 2006.
M. Fakharzadeh, S. Safavi-Naeini, S. K. Chaudhuri and O. M. Ramahi, “Miniaturized photonic crystal delay lines for beamforming of phased array systems,” The Mediterranean Journal of Electronics Communication, Vol. 2, No. 4, Oct. 2006.
J. Qin and O. M. Ramahi, “Ultra-wideband mitigation of simultaneous switching noise using novel planar electromagnetic bandgap structures,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Component Letters, Vol. 16, No. 9, pp. 487-489, Sept. 2006.
B. Mohajer-Iravani, S. Shahparnia and O. M. Ramahi, “Coupling reduction in enclosures and cavities using electromagnetic band gap structures,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 292-303, May 2006.
M. H. Kermani and O. M. Ramahi, “The complementary derivatives method: A second-order accurate interpolation scheme for non-uniform grid in FDTD simulation,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 60-62, Feb. 2006.
O. M. Ramahi and L. Li, “Analysis and reduction of electromagnetic field leakage through loaded apertures: A numerical study,” Electromagnetics Journal, Vol. 25, No. 7-8, pp. 679-693, October-December 2005.
S. Shahparnia and O. M. Ramahi, “A simple and effective model for electromagnetic bandgap structures embedded in printed circuit boards,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 15, No. 10, pp. 621-623, Oct. 2005.
N-T. Kim and O. M. Ramahi, “Power Amplifier Design Using Negative-Image Device Models,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 197-201, Oct. 2005.
X. Wu and O. M. Ramahi, “Application of C-COM to the Absorption of Evanescent Waves in Waveguides,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 15, No. 10, pp. 697-699, Oct. 2005.
T. Kamgaing and O. M. Ramahi, “Design and modeling of high-impedance electromagnetic surfaces for switching noise suppression in power planes,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 479-489, Aug. 2005.
S. Shahparnia and O. M. Ramahi, “Miniaturized Electromagnetic Bandgap Structures for Broadband Switching Noise Suppression in PCBs,” Electronics Letters, Vol. 41, No. 9, pp. 519-520, April 2005.
O. M. Ramahi, S. Shahparnia and B. Mohajer-Iravani, “Electromagnetic band gap material: Exotic stuff for not-so-exotic EMI/EMC applications,” Interference Technology – The Annual EMC Guide 2004, Item Publications.
S. Shahparnia and O. M. Ramahi, “Electromagnetic interference (EMI) reduction from printed circuit boards (PCB) using electromagnetic bandgap structures,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 580-587, Nov. 2004.
X. Wu and O. M. Ramahi, “Effect of weighting and damping coefficients on the accuracy of Higdon-based absorbing boundary conditions,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 446-668, June 2004.
O. M. Ramahi, V. Chebolu, and X. Wu, “Concurrent complementary operators method for two-dimensional time-harmonic simulation of radiation and scattering problems,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 408-415, Feb. 2004.
S. Shahparnia and O. M. Ramahi, “Simultaneous switching noise mitigation in printed circuit boards using cascaded high-impedance surface,” Electronics Letters, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 98-99, Jan. 2004.
O. M. Ramahi, “Analysis of conventional and novel delay lines: A numerical study,” Journal of Applied Computational Electromagnetic Society, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 181-190, Nov. 2003.
O. M. Ramahi, V. Subramanian, and B. Archambeault, “Simple and efficient finite-difference frequency-domain algorithm for study and analysis of power plane resonance and simultaneous switching noise in printed circuit boards and chip packages,” IEEE Transactions on Advanced Packaging Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 191-198, May 2003.
T. Kamgaing and O. M. Ramahi, “A novel power plane with integrated simultaneous switching noise mitigation capability using high impedance surface,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 21-23, Jan. 2003.
L. Li, J. Xie, O. M. Ramahi, M. Pecht, and B. J. Donham, “Airborne operation of portable electronic devices,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 30-39, Aug 2002.
O. M. Ramahi, “Concurrent complementary operators for mesh truncation in frequency domain simulations,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 99-101, March 2002.
X. Wu and O. M. Ramahi, “Application of the concurrent complementary operators method to numerically-derived absorbing boundary conditions,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 272-275, Feb. 2002.
O. M. Ramahi, “Frequency-domain complementary operators for finite elements simulation,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 629-631, April 2000.
O. M. Ramahi, “Absorbing boundary conditions for the three-dimensional vector wave equation,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 47, No. 11, pp. 1735-1736, Nov. 1999.
O. M. Ramahi, “Absorbing boundary conditions for convex object-conformable boundaries,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 47, No. 7, pp. 1141-1145, July 1999.
O. M. Ramahi, “Stability of absorbing boundary conditions,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 593-599, April 1999.
O. M. Ramahi, “Exact implementation of higher order Bayliss-Turkel absorbing boundary operators in finite-elements simulation,” IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letters, Vol. 8, No. 11, pp. 360-362, Nov. 1998.
O. M. Ramahi, “The concurrent complementary operators method for FDTD mesh truncation,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 46, No. 10, pp. 1475-1482, Oct. 1998.
J. Schneider, C. L. Wagner, and O. M. Ramahi, “Implementation of transparent sources in FDTD Simulations,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 46, No. 8, pp. 1159-1168, Aug. 1998.
J. Schneider and O. M. Ramahi, “The complementary operators method applied to acoustic finite difference time domain simulations,” J. Acoustical Soc. Am., Vol. 104, No. 2, pp. 686-693, Aug. 1998.
O. M. Ramahi, A. Z. Elsherbeni and C. Smith, “Dynamic analysis of V transmission lines,” IEEE Transactions Component Packaging and Manufacturing Tech., Part B: Advanced Packaging, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 250-257, Aug. 1998.
O. M. Ramahi, A. Khebir, and R. Mittra, ‘Comments on "A super absorbing boundary condition for the analysis of waveguide discontinuities with finite-difference method",' IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letters, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 208, May 1998.
O. M. Ramahi and J. Schneider, “Comparative study of the PML and COM,” IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letters, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 55-57, Feb. 1998.
O. M. Ramahi, “Extension of the concurrent COM mesh-truncation technique to 3D FDTD simulations,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 244-247, March 1998.
O. M. Ramahi, “The complementary operators method in FDTD simulations,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 33-45, Dec. 1997.
O. M. Ramahi, “Concurrent implementation of the complementary operators method in 2D space,” IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letters, Vol. 7, No. 6, June 1997.
O. M. Ramahi, “Stable FDTD solutions with higher order ABCs,” Microwave and Optical Tech. Letters, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 132-134, June 1997.
O. M. Ramahi, “Near- and far- field calculations in FDTD simulations using Kirchhoff's Surface Integral Representation,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 753-759, May 1997.
O. M. Ramahi, “Complementary boundary operators for wave propagation problems,” J. Computational Physics, Vol. 133, pp. 113-128, 1997.
O. M. Ramahi and B. Archambeault, “Adaptive absorbing boundary conditions in finite difference time domain applications for EMC simulations,” IEEE Transactions Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 37, No. 4, Nov. 1995.
O. M. Ramahi, “Complementary operators: A method to annihilate artificial reflections arising from the truncation of the computational domain in the solution of partial differential equations,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. AP-43, No. 7, pp. 697-704, July 1995.
O. M. Ramahi “Application of the complementary operator method to the finite difference time domain solution of the three-dimensional radiation problem,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 147-149, June 1995.
O. M. Ramahi and Y. T. Lo, “Superstrate effect on the resonant frequency of microstrip antennas,” Microwave and Optical Tech. Letters, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 254-257, June 1992.
O. M. Ramahi and R. Mittra, “A surface integral equation method for the finite element solution of waveguide discontinuity problems,” IEEE Transactions Microwave Theory Techniques, Vol. MTT-39, No. 3, pp. 604-608, March 1991.
O. M. Ramahi and R. Mittra, “Finite element solution for a class of unbounded geometries,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. AP-39, No. 2, pp. 244-250, February 1991.
A. Khebir, O. M. Ramahi, and R. Mittra, “An efficient partial differential equation technique for solving the problem of scattering by objects of arbitrary shape,” Microwave and Optical Tech. Letters, Vol. 2, No. 7, pp. 229-233, July 1989.
R. Mittra, O. M. Ramahi, A. Khebir, R. Gordon, and A. Kouki, “A review of absorbing boundary conditions for two and three-dimensional electromagnetic scattering problems,” IEEE Transactions Magnetics, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 3034-3039, July 1989.
O. M. Ramahi and R. Mittra, “Design of a matching network for an HF antenna using the real frequency method,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. AP-37, No. 4, pp. 506-509, April 1989.
R. Mittra and O. M. Ramahi, “Absorbing boundary conditions for the direct solution of partial differential equations arising in electromagnetic scattering problems,” in Finite Element and Finite Difference Methods in Electromagnetic Scattering, M. Morgan, ed., Vol. II, New York, N.Y.: Elsevier Science, Inc., 1989.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


Robert Pedersen and his former employer, Wahkiakum County, cross-appeal following a bench trial in Pedersen's maritime tort suit. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a recalculation of damages.
The County argues the district court lacked jurisdiction. The district court had jurisdiction if Pedersen was injured "in the course of his employment." Braen v. Pfeifer Transportation Co., 361 U.S. 129, 132-33 (1959); 46 App. U.S.C. § 688. Although the County contends the district court should not have relied on Pedersen's "subjective" belief and "self-serving" testimony that the conditions to jurisdiction were satisfied, the County presented no contradictory "objective" evidence. The district court did not err in finding it had jurisdiction.
Pedersen argues the County was vicariously liable for Peek's intentional assault under the doctrine of respondeat superior. If Pedersen raised such a claim below, he failed to produce evidence to support it. Pedersen's reliance on cases holding employers liable when supervisors assault subordinates is misplaced. See, e.g., Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. 635, 638 (1930) (foreman assaulted a member of crew "to hurry him about the work"). Peek was not Pedersen's supervisor, and disciplining Pedersen was not part of Peek's job. The district court properly rejected Pedersen's respondeat superior claim.
Pedersen argues the district court erred in finding him negligent. He contends seaman generally have only a "slight duty" to use reasonable care, and the district court held him to a higher standard. The district court held only Pedersen should have refrained from making sarcastic, gratuitous, and vaguely threatening remarks in a volatile situation. Pedersen argues he could not have foreseen that his conduct would lead to Peek's assault. The district court was entitled to disagree. If, as Pedersen contends and the district court found, the County should have foreseen the assault, Pedersen should have foreseen it also.
Pedersen argues the district court erroneously applied principles governing assumption of risk, rather than comparative negligence. We disagree. Although the County required the two men to see each other at shift changes, no evidence contradicts the district court's finding that "Pedersen could have avoided the confrontation by simply turning over his responsibilities to Peek and getting in his car."
Pedersen contends the district court erred in holding the ferry was seaworthy. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Peek did not have "a wicked disposition, a propensity to evil conduct, [or] a savage and vicious nature." Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., 348 U.S. 336, 340 (1955). The record indicates Peek did not intend to harm Pedersen, did not use a weapon, and was provoked, and that Pedersen would not have been harmed severely but for his preexisting condition. See e.g., Kirsch v. United States, 450 F.2d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1971) (crewmember who lost his temper and punched shipmate twice is not defective as a matter of law).
At the district court's suggestion, the parties agreed to resolve the dispute over Pedersen's medical damages in a special hearing. However, the district court did not hold the hearing, and the County did not have an adequate opportunity to challenge Pedersen's medical expenses. We vacate the award of medical damages and remand so the hearing on medical expenses may be held.
B. Wages Lost Before The Barge Collision.
The district court found the attack caused Pedersen to miss work before the barge accident, but reduced these damages by an additional 25% to account for Pedersen's pre-existing condition. The district court did not find, and nothing in the record suggests, that Pedersen would have missed these days of work if he had not been assaulted. The district court erred by discounting the wages Pedersen lost before the accident.
C. Earnings Lost After The Barge Collision.
The district court found the barge accident, not Peek's attack, ended Pedersen's skipper's career. Although Pedersen contends his injuries caused the barge accident, substantial evidence supports the district court's finding to the contrary. Pedersen also argues that because Peek attacked him before the barge accident, the assault alone caused his loss under Buchalski v. Universal Marine Corp., 393 F. Supp. 246 (W.D. Wash. 1975). However, Pedersen was not an innocent victim of another force or another tort, like the heart attack victim in Buchalski; he negligently rammed the County's ferry into a barge in mid-river on a clear day. Under these circumstances, the district court did not clearly err in finding the barge collision alone caused Pedersen to lose his skipper's job.
However, the district court did not explain its finding that Peek's attack reduced Pedersen's earning capacity by $10,000 per year. The district court did not find what Pedersen would have earned over those years but for Peek's attack, and did not address Pedersen's duty to mitigate damages. Consequently, neither the County nor Pedersen can meaningfully appeal the award. We therefore vacate the award of earnings lost following the barge collision and remand so the district court may make the factual findings underlying the award. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance v. Can-Car, Inc., 645 F.2d 17, 18-19 (9th Cir. 1980).
In light of all of the medical evidence, the district court did not clearly err in calculating Pedersen's damages for pain and suffering. The district court understood "the well-settled tort principle that a tortfeasor takes the plaintiff as he finds him," ER 75, and concluded Pedersen would have endured pain and suffering from his pre-existing medical and emotional conditions even if Peek had not attacked him.


text:
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Robert S. Bower (argued) and Todd O. Litfin, Rutan & Tucker, Costa Mesa, California, for the defendant-appellant.
Julia M.C. Friedlander (argued) and Lisa S. Gelb, City of San Francisco, San Francisco, California, for amici curiae City and County of San Francisco, on behalf of the defendant-appellant.
Richard R. Patch (argued) and A. Marisa Chun, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Jeffrey Sinsheimer, California Cable Television Association, Oakland, California; National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Washington, D.C.; and American Cable Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, amici curiae, on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-01874-WHA(BZ).
Before HAWKINS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.
These cases surround one central issue: did Santa Cruz County reasonably withhold consent to a change in ownership of a cable franchise? Because we determine the County's denial of consent was reasonable and lawful, we reverse the district court's decision on the merits, mooting the issue of attorney's fees in the companion case.
The core dispute here involves a lengthy set of negotiations between the County and Charter. While time-consuming and intensive, these negotiations boil down to whether the County's requests for financial and other information from Charter were reasonably related to the exercise of the County's approval authority. A full version of the negotiations can be found in the district court opinion, Charter Comms. Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1187-1200 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
In brief: in 1998, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen sought acquisition of Charter Communications, Inc. ("CCI"), which owned a subsidiary, Charter Communications LLC ("Charter").1 Charter had a cable television franchise with the County of Santa Cruz ("the County"); the franchise was administered by the County Board of Supervisors. The County's consent to the change in ownership was necessary for CCI to operate Charter's cable franchise. Under the relevant agreement, such consent could not be unreasonably denied.
The district court's findings of facts are reviewed for clear error and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Dolman v. Agee, 157 F.3d 708, 711 (9th Cir. 1998). Mixed questions of law and fact are generally reviewed de novo, Diamond v. City of Taft, 215 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 2000), although to the extent that a mixed question presents an "essentially" factual inquiry, then review is for clear error. Koirala v. Thai Airways Int'l Ltd., 126 F.3d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1997). Because the ultimate question is whether the County could reasonably have denied its consent under the circumstances, a mixed question arises; this question is not an "essentially factual" inquiry, though, and therefore this panel assesses the district court's conclusions under the de novo standard.
The County contests the district court's application of the standard of review during the bench trial, as well as the First Amendment-related decisions. The County's theory on appeal is that under its state law contract claim, Charter must show that the County acted arbitrarily or without evidentiary support in carrying out its legislative function by denying consent. The County relies upon a long line of authorities requiring reviewing courts to accord legislative determinations proper deference. It argues that: instead of showing deference, the district court undertook its own independent review, and in making its decision, the district court erred in interpreting the Cable Act of 1992 as precluding the County from making these kinds of inquiries of a transfer applicant; to compound error, the district court, after finding for Charter under the contract claim, addressed constitutional claims that appear to have been unnecessary for resolution of the case; once it addressed the constitutional claims, the County asserts, the district court misapplied the appropriate standard and then held that the County's cable ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, despite Charter's prior waiver of any objection to the ordinance.
Charter's argument is that the County was entitled to request only reasonable information, and because the information the County was seeking went well beyond what the law permitted, the County acted unreasonably in propounding its requests and denying its consent on the basis of not having received answers to its requests. Charter also accuses the County of improperly conditioning its consent upon illegal fees or concessions: e.g., a $500,000 mitigation fee, prefunding for a due diligence survey, and a long-term rate freeze. Because its expression was curtailed by the regulation of the cable franchise, Charter argues that the County's behavior amounts to a violation of the First Amendment.
We begin by focusing on the central question: was the County's denial of consent unreasonable? The district court said yes, finding that the County's denial was unreasonable and unlawful under the contract, the First Amendment, and the Cable Act and its FCC implementing regulations; consequently, the County's decision to deny consent was an unreasonable withholding of consent, thus constituting a material breach of the Franchise Agreement, which only allows for reasonable withholdings of consent. In reviewing the district court's judgment, we must answer a preliminary question: is the County owed any deference to its determinations of what is reasonable under the circumstances?
The franchise agreement at issue places the discretion to approve the transfer in the County's hands. When reviewing disputes emerging from this franchise agreement, a court must determine whether the County could have deemed it reasonable to deny consent; this is a much more forgiving standard than whether the district court judge would have denied consent himself if he were acting as the County's agent.
We note that in assessing the reasonableness of the County's decision, we are reviewing a discretionary decision of the County Board of Supervisors, a legislative body. As Charter concedes, grants, renewals, and consents to rate increases are all legislative acts "because they involve policy decisions regarding the terms and conditions of the use of the public rights-of-way." Charter cites no case law for the proposition that consents to transfers are treated differently, i.e., less deferentially, by courts. It argues that the County merely administers a contract in consenting to a transfer of ownership.
This characterization is wrong. As the County points out, if renewals are legislative, even though they involve the evaluation of a known entity, a transfer of ownership should, a fortiori, be viewed as a legislative action also, since the County must assess "a new entity operating under different financial and management circumstances." Moreover, the agreement between the parties incorporates the County Cable Ordinance, which, as a legislative act, operates for the benefit of all in the County.
The structure and substance of the district court's decision render apparent that no such deference was accorded; rather, the district court failed to address many of the reasons proffered by the County. Instead of merely asking whether the County's reasoning was fairly debatable, the district court substituted its judgment for the County's. Precedent, however, commands that courts should not stray from a deferential standard in these contexts, even when First Amendment rights are implicated through secondary effects. See City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 535 U.S. 425, 122 S. Ct. 1728, 1736, 152 L. Ed. 2d 670 (2002) (local government may, in furtherance of substantial governmental interests, rely on evidence "reasonably believed to be relevant"); see also Board of County Comm'rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 678, 116 S. Ct. 2342, 135 L. Ed. 2d 843 (1996) (the government's "interest in being free from intensive judicial supervision of its daily management functions [requires that] ... deference is therefore due to the government's reasonable assessments of its interests"); One World One Family Now v. Honolulu, 76 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 1996).
Under this deferential standard, the County's denial of consent should be upheld as long as there is substantial evidence for any one sufficient reason for denial. See FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 315, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211 (1993) (attacks on legislative arrangements have burden of refuting each conceivable basis that might support it); Desmond v. County of Contra Costa, 21 Cal. App. 4th 330, 336-37, 25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 842 (1993) ("As long as the Board made a finding that any one of the necessary elements enumerated in the ordinance  was lacking, and this finding was itself supported by substantial evidence, the Board's denial of appellant's application must be upheld."); Saad v. City of Berkeley, 24 Cal. App. 4th 1206, 1214, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 95 (1994) ("The burden is on the petitioner to show there is no substantial evidence whatsoever to support the findings of the board."). The district court did not examine whether all of the reasons detailed in the County's extensive Denial Resolution were spurious or unlawful. This was mistaken. Cf. United States R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 179, 101 S. Ct. 453, 66 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1980) ("Where, as here, there are plausible reasons for Congress' action, our inquiry is at an end. It is, of course, `constitutionally irrelevant whether this reasoning in fact underlay the legislative decision,' because this Court has never insisted that a legislative body articulate its reasons for enacting a statute.") (internal citation omitted).
We must therefore examine whether any one of the reasons offered by the County Board in its decision and attached exhibits survives scrutiny under a deferential standard.
Was There Sufficient Basis for the County's Decision to Deny Consent Without Prejudice?
The district court also failed to give deference to the County's articulated concern for keeping stable the subscriber rates in the future. Allen's offer, based on a per subscriber basis, was incontrovertibly and substantially higher than the market price. A high price might imperil the possibility of achieving a reasonable return on equity and thereby jeopardize the company's financial health, the stability of rates, and the quality of service. Fear of this high price then is also a legitimate concern. Nonetheless, the district court rejected this concern, reasoning that the "normal" fear would be whether there would be enough cash flow to service debt, and because there was no debt, there was no cause for concern, and therefore no cause for the information requests that would generate reliable inferences about prospective rates of return. Charter, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 1211.
Experts from both sides, however, testified that rates of return on equity are key factors in analyzing transactions of this type. This suggests that the County's concerns were reasonable. In a world where cable operators have scaled back franchises because "the initial franchise was economically unviable," House Rep. No. 98-934 at 21, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News at 4659, and where courts have in the past held that it would be unconstitutional for a government to prevent a utility company from collecting a constitutionally reasonable rate of return on their investments, see Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Engler, 257 F.3d 587, 596 (6th Cir. 2001), it could hardly be unreasonable for the County to be worried about the long-term viability of the Allen purchase and its effects on the County's responsibility to assure a stable cable franchise for its citizens.8 Nonetheless, the district court decided due diligence was improper, largely because few other local franchising authorities undertook this review. But as the amicus brief submitted by a host of local franchising authorities (LFAs) and the National League of Cities points out, this kind of due diligence does not typically occur, not because it is unnecessary but because the limited resources of local governments often prevent such scrutiny.
The County government, serving as steward of the public good, is entitled to be properly concerned about the long term consequences of a significantly above market-value purchase of a cable provider. While it is true that under the then-current FCC rules, Charter would not have been able to raise rates on this basis, those rules are subject to change; indeed, the rules have already been amended and may be amended again. See Brief of County Amici at 16-17.
The concerns we have highlighted here, which were articulated by the County in its denial of consent, were sufficient to justify the County's decision. Although we do not endorse every drib and drab of the County's actions during its negotiations with Charter, we cannot say the County acted without a rational basis or without substantial evidence for its decision to deny consent without prejudice. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment on these grounds and vacate its decision. We note that even if we thought the County had acted unreasonably, our view would be deferential not only because precedent so commands, but also because methods exist to promote self-correction in the future: citizens can vote out their local representatives and cable operators can refuse to enter into franchise agreements with notoriously difficult LFAs.
Charter attempts to persuade us of the County's bad faith behavior by pointing to the County's apparently unusual request that Charter fund and have prepared a due diligence study. But the relative oddity of this precaution is not of much moment given the deference accorded to legislative actions. More to the point, merely because the request is inconsistent with custom does not mean that it is in anyway unreasonable — think of Judge Hand's famous opinion in The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir. 1932) (because an entire industry may be negligent, industry custom is only some evidence of what is reasonable).
Finally, since the County's judgment was reasonable, it necessarily follows that its decision to deny the transfer on the basis of that judgment was supported by a legitimate governmental interest. Charter voluntarily entered into an agreement under which the County had to approve any transfer of the franchise, and thus, to that extent, waived its right to claim that a denial of a transfer violated its First Amendment rights.9 We therefore need not reach the other issues addressed by Charter and the district court.
The district court's judgment on the underlying dispute is reversed. Our decision moots the district court's award of attorney's fees to Charter. The district court's decisions in both cases under review here are vacated.
Unless there is a need to specify otherwise, we refer generically to the plaintiffs-appellees in this action as "Charter."
Federal law recognizes the power of an LFA to approve transfers but imposes certain regulations governing this process. One such regulation, promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), requires the use of a specific form, Form 394, to be used to seek approvals from franchising authorities See 47 C.F.R. 76.502.
Even if we viewed the County Board's action here as an administrative matter, rather than a legislative one, deference is owed under traditional administrative law principles. Seen in this way, whether the County denied consent reasonably is a question governed not by a preponderance of evidence standard, but rather a substantial evidence test See In re Van Ness Auto Plaza, 120 B.R. 545, 546 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Cal. 1990), cited with approval in Ferrari N. Am. Inc. v. Sims (In re R.B.B. Inc.), 211 F.3d 475, 477-78 (9th Cir. 2000) ("withholding of consent is reasonable if it is based on factors related to the proposed assignee's performance as a dealer and is supported by substantial objective evidence."). The Van Ness court also noted that in determining the suitability of transfers of franchisees, courts ought to "be somewhat cautious in requiring the [franchising authority] to enter into such a relationship involuntarily." Id. at 548-49.
Compare Guntert v. City of Stockton, 43 Cal. App. 3d 203, 215-217, 117 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1974), where the reviewing court found that the city acted arbitrarily by failing to attain enough information about the financial viability of a developer.
Our Court has expressly recognized that "First Amendment rights may be waived upon clear and convincing evidence that the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent."See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993) ("If the Union felt that First Amendment rights were burdened by [the contract provision], it should not have bargained them away and signed the agreement."). Our Court will not enforce a waiver "if the interest in its enforcement is outweighed in the circumstances by a public policy harmed by enforcement of the agreement." Id. That circumstance does not apply here, as public policy favors the government's decision to be careful in its role as steward. Moreover, in a case like this one, where sophisticated parties are represented by counsel, we think Charter was aware of what it was getting itself into. See Paragould Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Paragould, Ark., 930 F.2d 1310, 1314 (8th Cir. 1991) (waiver of constitutional rights can be implied from terms and conditions of a contract where party claiming right is sophisticated and represented by counsel; "Cablevision forgets that it bargained for its franchise agreement. Cablevision voluntarily entered into the franchise agreement, presumably for its own economic gain. The forum for protecting its free speech rights was the bargaining table, not the courtroom....").

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


The Swiss Federal Court recently issued a noteworthy judgment (scheduled for publication in the official reports) concerning the requirement of reciprocity with respect to the recognition of foreign bankruptcy decrees. The judgment (in German) is available here.
Marjolaine Jakob, the author of the following summary and comment, is a researcher at the University of Zurich, Faculty of Law.
Under Swiss international bankruptcy law, the access of a bankruptcy administrator to a bankruptcy debtor’s assets located in Switzerland requires a successful recognition of the foreign bankruptcy order by the competent Swiss court. The recognition of a foreign bankruptcy order and the effects of such recognition (including the opening of mandatory secondary insolvency proceedings over the assets located in Switzerland) are regulated by art. 166 et seq. SPILA (Swiss Private International Law Act). According to art. 166 para. 1 lit. c SPILA a foreign bankruptcy order shall be recognized provided that, amongst other prerequisites, reciprocity is granted by the state in which the order was rendered. In the decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court discussed hereinafter, it was disputed whether Dutch law grants reciprocity.
The parent company C Ltd., Rotterdam (the Netherlands), filed a claim in the debt-restructuring moratorium over the company B Ltd., Zug (Switzerland). The respective claim was for the most part provisionally admitted by the trustees and for the remaining part contested.
By judgment of August 6, 2012 the district court of Rotterdam opened bankruptcy proceedings over C Ltd. and appointed A as bankruptcy administrator.
By judgment of February 18, 2013 the cantonal court of Zug approved a composition agreement entered into between B Ltd. and the creditors.
On September 13, 2013, the foreign bankruptcy administrator (A) filed a request for recognition of the Dutch bankruptcy order of August 6, 2012 with the cantonal court of Zug.
By judgment of October 8, 2013 the cantonal court of Zug rejected the request for recognition of the Dutch bankruptcy order by reasoning that the prerequisite of reciprocity (art. 166 para. 1 lit. c SPILA) is not granted by Dutch law. After rejection of the appeal by the High Court of the Canton Zug, A filed an appeal in civil matters to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and requested annulment of the judgment of the High Court of the Canton of Zug, recognition of the Dutch insolvency order of August 6, 2012 and in consequence of the latter, the opening of secondary bankruptcy proceedings over C Ltd.’s assets located in Switzerland.
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court refers to earlier case law, according to which the prerequisite of reciprocity is to be interpreted in a broad sense. Reciprocity is granted if the law of the state concerned recognizes the effects of Swiss bankruptcy proceedings on similar (but not necessarily on identical) grounds. In other words, it suffices if the foreign law recognizes a Swiss bankruptcy order under conditions not considerably stricter than those established by Swiss law regarding the recognition of a foreign bankruptcy order.
The decision furthermore refers to the European trend of abolishing the prerequisite of reciprocity, which is also reflected in Swiss legislation. Since September 1, 2011 the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) may recognize under certain conditions foreign bankruptcy orders and insolvency measures pronounced against banks abroad without a mandatory opening of secondary bankruptcy proceedings in Switzerland (cf. art. 37g para. 2 Swiss Banking Act) and without the state in which the bankruptcy order was rendered granting reciprocity (cf. art. 10 para. 2 Regulation on Banking Insolvencies by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority). As a consequence thereof, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court acknowledges that the bar should not be set too high regarding the prerequisite of reciprocity where it still exists.
In the Netherlands, the opening of foreign bankruptcy proceedings cannot be formally recognized and no formal and comprehensive effects of seizure occur. Thus, according to Dutch law a foreign bankruptcy administrator has to “compete” with other creditors, since their rights over seized assets are to be respected. However, the foreign bankruptcy administrator has rights of action and enforcement rights on Dutch territory. Furthermore, he is able to directly access the bankruptcy debtor’s assets located in the Netherlands. Consequently, the Dutch international bankruptcy law appears to be equal in qualitative terms, although technically differing fundamentally from Swiss international bankruptcy law. According to the decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, with regard to the prerequisite of reciprocity, it is not decisive that the formal recognition of a foreign bankruptcy order and an overall liquidation of local assets are alien to Dutch international bankruptcy law. Instead, the quality of mutual assistance is decisive. Moreover, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court acknowledges that a foreign bankruptcy administrator is not in a worse position but presumably in numerous cases even in a better position in the Netherlands compared to the position of a foreign bankruptcy administrator in Switzerland.
In consequence thereof, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court concludes that Dutch law grants reciprocity according to art. 166 para. 1 lit. c SPILA and provided that the remaining prerequisites are fulfilled, the Dutch bankruptcy order shall be recognized.
It has to be welcomed that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has adopted a liberal interpretation based on a contemporary understanding of tendencies in international insolvency law and especially in Swiss international banking insolvency law. The former case law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court was shaped by a highly restrictive interpretation of art. 166 et seq. SPILA insisting on a protective interpretation of Swiss international insolvency law. The present decision delivers the impression that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court finally considers international trends and – even more important – trends in Swiss law. However, it is incomprehensible and intolerable that Swiss international banking insolvency law contains a far more liberal regulation than Swiss international insolvency law; the latter being applicable much more frequently. This unsatisfactory legal situation is the result of the uncoordinated process of revising and adopting Swiss legislation. Hopefully, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court will continue to follow international trends and adopt a more generous approach also on other issues of Swiss international insolvency law, for example with regard to the power of the bankruptcy administrator in Switzerland.


ORIE P. MATTINGLY v. AUBREY F. MATTINGLY, ET UX.
No. 1301 September Term, 1991.
Nancy E. Paige, Baltimore (Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, on the brief, Paul J. Bailey, Leonardtown, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Cooper (Stephen P. Fitzgerald and Mudd, Mudd & Fitzgerald, P.A., on the brief), La Plata, for appellees.
Argued before ROSALYN B. BELL, WENNER and MOTZ, JJ.
The central question presented here is whether the circuit court committed reversible error in submitting this case for determination by a jury. Because the issues presented and remedies requested here are purely equitable and so did not entitle any party to a jury trial, the trial court did err in submitting the case to a jury. Moreover, this error resulted in prejudice to the appellant. Accordingly, we must reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County and remand for independent findings of fact.
Lester Mattingly Sons is a farming and excavation business in Leonardtown, Maryland, started by Lester Mattingly, Sr. His sons, Lester Mattingly, Jr. ("Buddy") and appellee, Aubrey Mattingly ("Aubrey"), worked with him until his death in 1963. After 1963, Buddy and Aubrey worked together to continue the family business. For the most part, Buddy worked on the farm and operated the construction equipment, and Aubrey acquired the excavating jobs for the business. From 1963 until a few years before her death in 1976, Buddy and Aubrey's mother acted as bookkeeper for the business. After their mother's death, Aubrey's wife, Vicki Mattingly, assumed the duties of bookkeeper. There was testimony that the brothers worked "side by side" with "no cross words"; neither "boss[ed] or dominate[d]" the other. There was also testimony, however, that Buddy did not participate in the day-to-day financial affairs of the business; that he just "trusted them [Aubrey and Vicki] to tell [him] what was going on." During the first year after their father's death, Buddy earned a salary of three hundred dollars a month from the business. He then stopped receiving any regular income from the business, however, and received only "a few hundred dollars ... once or twice a year." Instead, Buddy lived off money he had previously made and money which was left to him by his mother and, it was alleged, did not have enough money to make repairs on his home.
In June 1984, at the age of 55, Buddy married appellant, Orie Penny Beasley ("Penny"). It was his first marriage and her third. Although they were both lifelong residents of St. Mary's County, they chose to marry in Charles County. They attempted to conceal their marriage from Buddy's family, especially Aubrey, because Buddy believed that Aubrey would disapprove. On their wedding day, at Penny's request, Buddy granted Penny a general power of attorney and executed a will leaving his entire estate to her, without informing Aubrey of the marriage. Penny sent Aubrey three letters asking him to "address and correct the wrongs that have been done [to Buddy in the business.]" Aubrey did not respond to any of the letters. When Aubrey finally learned of the marriage, he was very upset. He believed that Penny wanted to "break up" the family business. Buddy testified that Aubrey "almost every day" told him "to get rid of that woman or get a divorce ... turn your property over to me or get a divorce," which made Buddy feel "very bad."
A year and a half later, on December 20, 1985, after several consultations with an attorney (three times without Aubrey present), Buddy executed a no-consideration deed, conveying his share of approximately 626 acres of land to Aubrey and Vicki Mattingly. On the same date he executed another no-consideration deed, conveying an additional 143 acres to Aubrey and Vicki, and reserving a life estate in the land for himself. On January 23, 1986, Buddy entered into a written agreement with Aubrey for the sale of Buddy's interest in Lester Mattingly Sons. Under the terms of the agreement, Buddy agreed to sell to Aubrey his 40% interest in the business and equipment. Aubrey agreed to pay $50,000.00, plus repay a prior loan made by Buddy to the partnership in the amount of $23,000, for a total payment of $73,000. This total amount was to be paid at the rate of $10,000 per year beginning two and one-half years later, in July of 1988. Less than a month later, on February 5, 1986, Buddy signed a release of Aubrey from "all issues relating to all accounting" between himself and Aubrey for the business known as Lester Mattingly Sons and also released Aubrey "from all liability for claims and demands arising out of the conduct of the business, accounting of funds, and any and all other transactions between us not contained in the Agreement of Sale of my share of the business dated January 23, 1986."
The parties stipulated that Buddy was competent "to enter into contracts and agreements" and that "his competency" at the time he executed the agreements set forth above "is not an issue in the case." Nevertheless, Dr. Jonas Rappeport, a forensic psychiatrist, testified that he had evaluated Buddy and determined, from a battery of psychiatric tests, that Buddy was suffering from "dependent personality disorder." Moreover, on December 21, 1988, Penny, at the request of Buddy, and over the objection of Aubrey, was appointed the guardian of her husband's property by the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County, Mattingly v. Mattingly, Case No. 87-69, December 1988. That holding was affirmed by this Court in an unreported opinion.
The present action was brought by Penny, as the guardian of Buddy's property, to set aside, on the grounds of "undue influence and other unfair means" by Aubrey, the two deeds, the sales agreement, and the release of liability entered into by Buddy. Penny also sought a dissolution of the partnership and an independent accounting of partnership affairs from 1963 to February 1987, whereby Buddy would receive one-half of the value of the partnership assets, repayment of a $28,000 loan allegedly made by him to Aubrey and Vicki, and half of the proceeds of a right-of-way purchased by Southern Maryland Electric Company (SMECO). Finally, Penny sought recovery of costs, including attorney's and other fees, plus interest and "damages as may be proper for the delay."
1. Whether Aubrey dominated and coerced Lester to such an extent that Lester was prevented from exercising his own free judgment and choice in executing a deed to Aubrey and Victoria of Lester's interest in more than 600 acres of land without consideration; 2. Whether Aubrey exerted such influence, with respect to a second deed from Lester to the same parties for 143 acres of land, also without consideration; 3. Whether Aubrey exerted such influence with respect to the transfer of Lester's share in the brothers' partnership; and 4. Whether Aubrey exerted such influence with respect to a release by Lester of Aubrey from all claims respecting that partnership.
The jury answered "no" to each of the questions, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of Aubrey and his wife, Vicki.
If a claim is brought that historically would have been filed on the law side of the court and a jury trial is properly demanded, a jury will hear the case. Equitable claims will be decided by the court without a jury.
Hashem v. Taheri, 82 Md. App. 269, 272-73, 571 A.2d 837 (1990) (emphasis added) (citing P. Niemeyer and L. Richards, Maryland Rules Commentary at 123, 125 (1984)). See also In re Graham, 747 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir.1984). Kahle v. McDonough Builders, Inc., 85 Md. App. 141, 149, 582 A.2d 557 (1990).
In order to preserve inviolate the right to a jury trial, however, both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have directed that when "the existence of both legal and equitable issues within the same case requires the selection between the jury and the court as the determiner of common issues, the discretion of the trial court `is very narrowly limited and must, wherever possible, be exercised to preserve jury trial.'" Higgins, supra, 310 Md. at 544, 530 A.2d 724 (quoting Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510, 79 S. Ct. 948, 956, 3 L. Ed. 2d 988 (1959)). Accordingly, if a case presents any legal issues, even if those issues are outweighed by equitable issues, the case is to be tried to a jury unless "the use of the jury trial itself will in some way obstruct a satisfactory disposition of the equitable claim." Id. 310 Md. at 551, 530 A.2d 724 (quoting Thermo-Stitch, Inc. v. Chemi-Cord Processing Corp., 294 F.2d 486, 491 n. 12 (5th Cir.1961)).
Thus, as a result of the "merger of law and equity" it is often difficult to determine whether a particular case contains at least some legal claim, and so entitles the litigants to a jury trial, or is wholly equitable, and so carries no entitlement to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals has directed that "we turn to the federal case law for guidance in defining the scope of the right to jury trial in Maryland." Id. 310 Md. at 543, 530 A.2d 724. The Supreme Court has set forth three factors to be considered when examining whether a particular claim gives rise to a jury trial: (1) the customary manner of trying such a cause before the merger of law and equity; (2) the kind of remedy sought by the plaintiff; and (3) the abilities and limitations of a jury in deciding the issue. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 538 n. 10, 90 S. Ct. 733, 738 n. 10, 24 L. Ed. 2d 729 (1970). As Judge McAuliffe suggested in Higgins, "the third prong" of the Ross test has not been utilized by the courts as "a sufficient ground to deny a jury trial." Higgins, supra, 310 Md. at 547, 530 A.2d 724. See In re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation, 609 F.2d 411, 426 n. 48 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied sub. nom., Gant v. Union Bank, 446 U.S. 929, 100 S. Ct. 1866, 64 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1980) (noting that the Supreme Court has considered the Seventh Amendment question on several occasions since Ross without once considering this third factor). Recently, the Supreme Court explained that the second prong of the Ross test whether the remedy sought is legal or equitable is the most important factor to be considered. Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558, 110 S. Ct. 1339, 1345, 108 L. Ed. 2d 519 (1990) (citing Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 109 S. Ct. 2782, 106 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1989)).
* * * * * * Lester A. Mattingly, Jr. should receive one-half of the accounts receivable; Repayment of the $28,000 loan from Lester A. Mattingly, Jr. to Defendants at 12% interest; Payment to Lester A. Mattingly, Jr., of one-half of the $16,000 SMECO right-of-way; * * * * * * That the Defendants pay all costs of every kind, including ... interest and damages as may be proper for the delay."
Thus, this is an action for rescission and accounting between partners. An action for rescission or cancellation of a contract or other instrument is traditionally equitable and so was customarily decided by a court of equity before the merger of law and equity. American Life Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 300 U.S. 203, 212, 57 S. Ct. 377, 378-79, 81 L. Ed. 605 (1937); Conner v. Groh, 90 Md. 674, 683, 45 A. 1024 (1900) (law is "without jurisdiction to cancel or reform a contract"). See also 5 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 38.23 (2nd ed. 1991) ("Moore"). Similarly, an accounting between partners in an existing partnership, like that alleged here between Buddy and Aubrey, was traditionally an exclusively equitable action in Maryland. McSherry v. Brooks, 46 Md. 103, 115, 116 (1877) ("The general rule is too well established to admit of any question, that actions at law cannot be maintained by one partner against another, involving the state of the partnership accounts"). See also Moore ¶ 38.25 ("under the Federal Rules, there is no right to a jury trial if the case or issue for an accounting is one formerly within the exclusive jurisdiction of equity, or is an incident to a case or issue over which there is equitable jurisdiction") (footnotes omitted); Kahle v. McDonough Builders, Inc., supra, 85 Md. App. at 150-54, 582 A.2d 557. Thus, application of the first prong of the Ross test indicates that there is no right to a jury trial here.
Analysis of the more important second Ross factor also leads to this conclusion because the "relief requested" in the complaint is exclusively equitable in nature. The principal relief requested is rescission. It is well-settled in Maryland that rescission is a purely equitable remedy. Creamer v. Helferstay, 294 Md. 107, 114, 448 A.2d 332 (1982) ("It is beyond dispute that the authority of a court to rescind or cancel a contract is purely equitable"). The remaining relief requested depends on the outcome of the action for rescission. If the partnership has been validly dissolved as Aubrey claims, Penny is not entitled to rescission of the release, etc., which she alleges improperly dissolved it, or to an accounting of partnership assets. If, however, Buddy's transfer of his partnership interest and his release of Aubrey's liability was due to the "undue influence" of Aubrey, then the partnership still exists, and Buddy is entitled to an accounting of the partnership assets. See Stevens v. Yeatman, 19 Md. 480, 484 (1863); Malinow v. Eberly, 322 F. Supp. 594, 600 (D.Md. 1971). In Maryland, a partner is entitled to "an accounting in equity from others in transaction" but not "to recover in an action at law ... for a share of profits" where there has been no "settlement or account stated between them." Morgart v. Smouse, 103 Md. 463, 468-9, 63 A. 1070 (1906).
Thus, to recapitulate, if Penny obtains one equitable remedy, rescission, i.e., by demonstrating an existing partnership between Buddy and Aubrey, she is entitled to another equitable remedy, accounting. In the accounting, she is entitled to have a court determine how much money, if any, Buddy is due from the assets of the partnership and then dissolve the partnership. In the course of the accounting, the court would determine Buddy's entitlement to the specific dollar amounts requested, i.e., one-half of the value of the partnership assets, the repayment of the $28,000 loan, and one-half of the proceeds from the SMECO right-of-way. Since entitlement to these monies is simply a part of the purely equitable remedy of accounting, it provides no basis for a right to a jury trial.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has specifically recognized that damages which are "restitutionary," e.g., "disgorgement of improper profits" or "incidental to or intertwined with" certain equitable relief, e.g., an injunction, may be equitable. Local No. 391 v. Terry, supra, 110 S. Ct. at 1348. See also Fink v. Pohlman, 85 Md. App. 106, 122, 582 A.2d 539 (1990) (since "any prayer for a legal remedy is inexorably intertwined with the equitable nature of the claim made and the relief sought" it was held there was no entitlement to jury trial). Some of the specific dollar amounts requested here a portion of the partnership assets and proceeds of the SEMCO right-of-way may be "disgorgement" of improper profits; all are "incidental to and intertwined" with equitable relief rescission and partnership accounting. Accordingly, they do not entitle the litigants to a jury trial.
Dairy Queen v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S. Ct. 894, 8 L. Ed. 2d 44 (1962) is not to the contrary. While Dairy Queen did involve a request for accounting, it was an accounting of profits from a franchising contract, not a request for rescission and an accounting between partners. The trial court held that the action was "purely equitable" or "if not purely equitable, whatever legal issues that were raised were `incidental' to equitable issues, and in either case, no right to jury trial existed." Id. at 470, 82 S. Ct. at 896. The Supreme Court reversed, noting first that, if there were legal issues, the right to trial by jury would not be lost as to those issues just because they were "incidental" to equitable issues. The court then held that a request for a nominally equitable remedy, accounting, could not be used to convert what was otherwise a legal claim for breach of contract into an equitable one in order to defeat the right to a jury trial. Here, in contrast, there are no legal issues. Rather, as in Phillips v. Kaplus, 764 F.2d 807 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1059, 106 S. Ct. 802, 88 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1986), there is a claim for rescission and partnership accounting and so the type of relief requested "necessarily involves the court's equitable jurisdiction." Id. at 814. Thus, here as in Phillips, "the fact that the ultimate disposition of the action will involve a distribution of partnership assets to all parties does not convert this into a legal action for damages. Rather, it merely is the natural consequence of the winding up of partnership affairs. This is simply not a case where the party is attempting to disguise a legal claim for damages by asking for an accounting." Id. See Moore § 38.25 (citing and quoting Phillips with approval).
In sum, when this case is examined pursuant to the Ross test it is clear that: (1) before the merger of law and equity, the customary manner of trying this action for rescission and partnership accounting was in an equity court, and (2) the kind of remedies sought here rescission, accounting and specific monetary amounts pursuant to the accounting are equitable in nature. Thus, there was no entitlement to a jury trial.
Aubrey, perhaps recognizing the inevitability and correctness of the above conclusion, maintains that even if "the lower court erred in submitting the disputed factual issues in this case to a jury, that error was harmless." This is so, Aubrey claims, because although there is a constitutional right to a jury trial in certain cases, there is no corresponding constitutional right to a bench trial. See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 584, 88 S. Ct. 1209, 1217-18, 20 L. Ed. 2d 138; Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 34, 85 S. Ct. 783, 789, 13 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1965); United States v. Joyce, 499 F.2d 9, 21 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1031, 95 S. Ct. 512, 42 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1974); Thwing v. State, 470 F.2d 351, 353 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 937, 93 S. Ct. 1917, 36 L. Ed. 2d 399 (1973); Thermo-Stitch, Inc. v. Chemi-Cord Processing Corp., 294 F.2d 486, 490 (5th Cir.1961). But see Constitution of Maryland Art. IV, § 8(a); Thomas v. State, 89 Md. App. 439, 598 A.2d 789 (1991). Even if Aubrey is correct, this does not mean that the error here is harmless.
It may well be that a jury is without power or jurisdiction to decide this purely equitable action. As noted above, prior to the merger of law and equity in Maryland, a law court had no jurisdiction over an action for rescission, Creamer v. Helferstay, supra, 294 Md. at 116, 448 A.2d 332, or one for accounting between partners involving the status of partnership affairs. McSherry v. Brooks, supra, 46 Md. at 115; Morgart v. Smouse, supra, 103 Md. at 468-69, 63 A. 1070. We have held that the "merger" of law and equity "was not intended to abolish all differences between legal and equitable claims and defenses to them, but only to abolish `[p]leading distinctions between law and equity' and `to assure that [a]ll claims and defenses are determined in one court.'" Southern Four v. Parker, 81 Md. App. 85, 92, 566 A.2d 808 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Gehring, 64 Md. App. 359, 370-72, 496 A.2d 317 (1985)). Thus, relief and defenses that are exclusively within the jurisdiction of equity remain so, despite the merger of the separate forms of pleading and the separate courts. See, e.g., Southern Four v. Parker, supra, 81 Md. App. at 91, 566 A.2d 808 (conditional civil judgment void in case at law for money damages for breach of contract); Smith v. Gehring, supra, 64 Md. App. at 370-72, 496 A.2d 317 (equitable doctrine of laches unavailable as a defense to purely legal claim). Moreover, Maryland Rule 2-511(d) expressly provides that "Issues of fact not triable of right by a jury shall be decided by the court and may not be submitted to a jury for an advisory verdict" (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals, however, has shown great reluctance to order reversal because a trial court's law/equity choice was erroneous. Instead, it has generally, after acknowledging that law/equity error, simply resolved the case on the merits. See, e.g., Mayor of Landover v. Brandt, 199 Md. 105, 107-08, 85 A.2d 449 (1952); Burns v. Bines, 189 Md. 157, 164, 55 A.2d 487 (1947). We have found only three cases in which, after holding the law/equity choice erroneous, the Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded the case; and in all three cases the law/equity error was accompanied by another ground for reversal. See Creamer v. Helferstay, 294 Md. 107, 116-133, 448 A.2d 332 (1982); Millison v. Citizens Nat'l Bank, 256 Md. 431, 439, 260 A.2d 324 (1970); Senick v. Lucas, 234 Md. 373, 381, 199 A.2d 375 (1964). Moreover, none of these cases are post-merger cases and none involve wholly equitable claims improperly heard by a jury. Accordingly, we might well be reluctant to find reversal and remand required here solely on jurisdictional grounds. But see Creamer v. Helferstay, 294 Md. at 116, 448 A.2d 332 ("the order appealed from is being vacated on the procedural ground that a law court has no power to affirmatively order the rescission of a contract) (emphasis added); id. at 133, 448 A.2d 332 (Murphy, C.J. concurring) ("The trial judge sitting ... in an action at law, possessed no equity powers and was therefore without jurisdiction to rescind the contract. I would go no further in disposing of the appeal") (emphasis added).
In any event, we need not so hold since the improper grant of jury trial here was accompanied by error and resulted in actual prejudice which requires reversal and remand. This is so because when the case was improperly submitted to a jury, the plaintiff, Penny, on behalf of Buddy, did not get the benefit of the proper, and more lenient, equitable burden of proof standard on the critical issue of confidential relationship. In an action at law, the person claiming the existence of a confidential relationship has the burden of proving that the relationship exists and that fraud by the defendant injured the plaintiff. Lackey v. Bullard, 262 Md. 428, 433, 277 A.2d 593 (1971). As the Court of Appeals has recognized, the burden of proving fraud in such an action at law is a "heavy one" and may only be met with "clear and convincing proof." Id. In a suit in equity, however, if a plaintiff establishes the existence of a confidential relationship, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that the plaintiff's actions were "free, voluntary and unbiased." Mullan v. Mullan, 222 Md. 503, 506, 161 A.2d 693 (1960). Thus, when a confidential relationship is established, and "the party occupying the position of dominion," here Aubrey, "receives a benefit" from the transaction, there is a presumption against its validity, placing upon the beneficiary, Aubrey, the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that there has been no abuse of confidence, and that he "acted in good faith, and that the act by which [he] benefitted was the free, voluntary, and independent act of the other party to the relationship." Wenger, Admx. v. Rosinsky, 232 Md. 43, 49, 192 A.2d 82 (1963). Id. See also Wimmer v. Wimmer, 287 Md. 663, 669, 414 A.2d 1254 (1980).
At trial, Penny requested a jury instruction consistent with the equitable burden of proof standard, i.e., that if a fiduciary or confidential relationship exists as to a disputed transaction, the burden of proof is on the benefitting party to prove that the transaction was fair and that it was the deliberate and voluntary act of the other party. The trial court declined to give the instruction finding, as a matter of law, "that there is no sufficient evidence in this case to establish a confidential relationship." This finding was error.
In fact, although the parties stipulated that Buddy was competent "to enter into contracts and agreements" and that "his competency was not an issue in the case," there was abundant evidence, from both fact and expert witnesses, from which a fact finder could have concluded that Buddy, who suffered from a dependent personality disorder, heavily relied upon and reposed confidence in Aubrey, and so there was a confidential relationship between the two brothers. See, e.g., Desser v. Woods, 266 Md. 696, 708, 296 A.2d 586 (1972) (reliance for advice and handling of some personal and business affairs is sufficient to establish a prima facie confidential relationship). Indeed, a confidential relationship between Aubrey and Buddy had been established as a matter of law because the brothers were partners. As noted within, supra note 1, it was undisputed that a partnership had existed between Aubrey and Buddy; while Aubrey claimed that this partnership had been properly dissolved, Buddy claimed it had not and that he was entitled to an accounting. The brothers agreed, however, that they had been partners. It is well-settled that the relationship between partners is a fiduciary one. Herring v. Offutt, 266 Md. 593, 597, 295 A.2d 876 (1972); Allen v. Steinberg, 244 Md. 119, 128, 223 A.2d 240 (1966); Upman v. Thomey, 145 Md. 347, 349, 125 A. 860 (1924). Since, as a matter of law, there was a confidential relationship between Aubrey and Buddy, the plaintiff, Penny, as Buddy's guardian, was entitled to have an equity court determine if the defendants, Aubrey and Vicki, established that Buddy's actions (execution of the deed, release, etc.) were "free, voluntary and unbiased." See Mullan v. Mullan, supra, 222 Md. at 506, 161 A.2d 693.
We remand this case to the circuit court so that it can make independent findings of fact and enter judgment upon the evidence that was presented at the trial before it, consistent with the directives set forth in this opinion. Although this procedure has been criticized as forcing the trial judge in view "of the expiration of considerable time between the original trial and the remand ... to rely on an imperfect recollection of events at trial," it is recognized that "a balancing of the extent of prejudice to one erroneously denied a nonjury trial against the inconvenience of a new trial, has led courts to follow this course." Note, The Right to a Nonjury Trial, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 1176, 1185-86 (1961). See, e.g., Miller v. O'Brien, 17 Wash. 2d 753, 137 P.2d 525 (1943); Byrne v. McKeachie, 29 S.D. 476, 137 N.W. 343 (1912).
In order to assist the trial court in making its independent findings of fact on remand, we consider the final question the exclusion of Dr. Rappeport's expert testimony with respect to Buddy's capacity to make a valid gift. Dr. Rappeport was called as an expert to testify as to Buddy's mental condition at the time of the disputed transactions. His testimony was preserved by video deposition, which the jury watched at trial. On cross-examination, counsel for Aubrey and Vicki asked Dr. Rappeport whether, in his opinion, Buddy was capable of making a valid gift. Dr. Rappeport answered, "no." Counsel for Aubrey and Vicki subsequently withdrew the question and asked the court to exclude the question and answer at trial; the court granted the request.
The admissibility of expert testimony is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court, and its decision to admit or exclude such testimony will seldom constitute a ground for reversal. Bloodsworth v. State, 307 Md. 164, 185, 512 A.2d 1056 (1986); Raithel v. State, 280 Md. 291, 301, 372 A.2d 1069 (1977); Franceschina v. Hope, 267 Md. 632, 636, 298 A.2d 400 (1973); Oaks v. State, 83 Md. App. 1, 9, 573 A.2d 392 (1990). The party challenging the ruling of the trial court on the admissibility of expert testimony has the burden of showing an abuse of discretion. Franceschina, supra, 267 Md. at 636-37, 298 A.2d 400.
As Penny notes, one of the central issues in the case was the validity of certain gifts made by Buddy to Aubrey and Vicki, and expert opinion "is admissible, even on the ultimate issue of fact, `if it is relevant and will aid the trier of fact.'" This is an accurate statement of the law. Indeed, at oral argument in this Court, counsel for Aubrey acknowledged that it would not have been error for the trial court to admit this testimony. The failure to permit an opinion as to the "ultimate fact," however, is not error where the expert is permitted to "develop the component of predicate facts that would logically yield that `ultimate fact.'" Cirincione v. State, 75 Md. App. 166, 180-81, 540 A.2d 1151, cert. denied, 313 Md. 611, 547 A.2d 188 (1988). Dr. Rappeport was permitted to testify that Buddy was "suffering from a dependent personality disorder," the essential feature in which the individual passively "allows others to assume responsibility for major areas of his or her life"; that he was "not a stupid person"; that he "had trouble getting his thoughts together"; "that there was no serious cognition or understanding problems"; that he "allowed others to make all his decisions ... had allowed his brother, Aubrey, and was now, in a certain sense, allowing Penny"; and "that he subordinated his own needs because he was afraid of losing that support and he certainly lacks self-confidence and saw himself as being inadequate and incompetent." The jury was able to consider all these opinions and the rest of Dr. Rappeport's testimony.
Accordingly, the exclusion of Dr. Rappeport's opinion as to Buddy's ability to make a gift was not error. On the other hand, consideration of this testimony by the fact finder would not be error either. Thus, on remand, in making its independent findings of fact, the trial court may consider all of Dr. Rappeport's testimony, crediting all, part, or none of it as the trial court deems appropriate.
JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. MARY'S COUNTY FOR INDEPENDENT FINDINGS OF FACT CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLEES.
 In the complaint it is asserted that the brothers were partners in the business and Buddy so testified at trial. Aubrey denied this in the answer to the complaint, but testified at trial that he and Buddy had worked together in the business and that partnership tax returns listing Buddy and Aubrey as partners were filed "until the time" Buddy "signed his interest over to" Aubrey. Moreover, Aubrey admitted executing a written agreement dated January 23, 1986 (introduced as an exhibit at trial), which evidences his commitment, as the owner of a 60% interest in Lester Mattingly Sons, to purchase from Buddy for $73,000 Buddy's 40% interest in that business.
The right of a trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.
 If the case had been one properly tried at law, the trial court's refusal to give the instruction would not have been error because a confidential relationship does not shift the burden of proof to the benefitting party at law. Thus, the error here is not the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury with respect to the proper burden of proof at law, but rather the submission of the case to the jury when it should have been tried in equity where a different standard of proof was proper.


Our Site complies with 18 U.S.C.
Our Site complies with 18 U.S.C. § 2257, and its regulations. All models that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256) appearing or otherwise contained in this website were at least eighteen years old at the time of the creation of such depictions. The owners and operators of this website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c) (2)) of any of the visual content contained in this website. However, Site may have copies of a record of the ages of those persons portrayed in any sexually explicit materials on this site. Site WILL NOT RELEASE THESE RECORDS TO ANYONE OTHER THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATE, OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, OR AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY OPERATION OF LAW. In fulfilling its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 2257, Site relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 808 (10th Cir 1998), which held that entities which have no role in the “hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation” of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257.