that no such hard and fast benchmark exists, however. {See Oral Ruling on City’s Rule 52(c) Motion, Trial Tr., 1100-1104.) 16 . Ruiz v. City of Santa Mana, 160 F.3d 543, 553-54 (9th Cir.1998) (”[I]n a multi seat, mul-ti vote election, the ability of the minority to elect a non minority candidate is not as probative in a Gingles prong three analysis as the inability of the minority to elect a minority candidate.”); Uno v. City of Holyoke, 72 F.3d 973, 988 n. 8 (1st Cir.1995) ("Although the VRA does not require for a successful section 2 showing that minority-preferred candidates be members of the minority group, elections in which minority candidates run are often especially probative on the issue of racial bloc voting.”); Nipper v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1494, 1540 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); LULAC v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 849 (5th
holding that strickland applies to cases involving successive representation holding that in a case involving misrepresentations in violation of securities and exchange commission rule 10b5 under the circumstances of this case involving primarily a failure to disclose positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery holding in dispute involving two insurers the federal action against only one insurer should be stayed in favor of state action involving both holding that elections involving only white candidates are generally less probative than those involving minority candidates holding that a crime involving the willful commission of a base or depraved act is a crime involving moral turpitude whether or not the statute requires proof of evil intent