In re Cellular 101, Inc., 539 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2008)
    A party’s failure to timely inform the court of appeals of a settlement that it believes disposes of a pending appeal precludes the party from asserting the affirmative defense of settlement and release in a later proceeding.
    
In re Valdez Fisheries Development Ass’n, Inc., 439 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 2006)
    Where bankruptcy court issued an order approving a settlement agreement, and issued a second order dismissing the case but failing to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement, the court had no ancillary jurisdiction under  Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) to enforce the settlement.

In re Lanijani, 325 B.R. 282 (9th Cir. BAP 2005)
    “. . .[W]hen a cause of action is being sold to a present or potential defendant over the objection of creditors, a bankruptcy court must, in addition to treating it as a sale, independently evaluate the transaction as a settlement under the prevailing “fair and equitable” test, and consider the possibility of authorizing the objecting creditors to prosecute the cause of action for the benefit of the estate, as permitted by § 503(b)(3)(B).”
    
In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2005)
    Bankruptcy court correctly found that debtor was competent at the time he entered into a settlement, even though he had a stroke immediately after the meditation was completed.

In re Andreyev, 313 B.R. 302 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2004)
    Entry of judgment based upon the mistaken impression that the debtor had entered into a settlement agreement for $1000 in a credit card dischargeability action was erroneous.

In re Mickey Thompson Entertainment Group, Inc., 292 B.R. 415 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2003)
    Bankruptcy court abused discretion in approving trustee’s settlement, where party offered trustee $45,000 more to purchase claims against insiders than the insiders offered.

Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2002)     
    A party's affirmative response in open court to being asked if she agrees to the recited terms of a settlement agreement placed on the record constitutes a binding agreement to settle. Sanctions for reneging on the agreement were appropriate.

In re Guy F. Atkinson Company of California, 242 B.R. 497 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1999)
    Bonding companies, rather than trustee, may seek settlement of bankruptcy estate claims where sufficient reason exists to allow such relief and companies intend to maximize estate for benefit of all creditors.

In re Colortran, Inc., 218 B.R. 507 (9th Cir. B.A.P.1997)
    Order denying uncontested compromise reversed.

In re Schmitt, 215 B.R. 417 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997)
    Bankruptcy court properly approved compromise to avoid complex and probably unsuccessful litigation

Ortloff v. Silver Bar Mines, Inc., 111 F.3d 85 (9th Cir. 1997)

In re Hunter, 66 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1995)
    Absent an allegation of fraud on the court, a party who enters into a settlement may not maintain an independent action to set aside the judgment unless he can fit within the parameters of Rule 60(b)

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)
    Failure to reserve jurisdiction to enforce settlement left D. Court without jurisdiction to enforce

In re Lendvest Mortgage, Inc., 42 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 1994)
    Bankruptcy court must undertake an independent allocation of a settlement before it may conclude that a preferential transfer claim has been satisfied, either completely or partially.

Bance Do Brasil , S.A. v. Latian, Inc., 234 Cal.App.3d 973 (Cal.App. 1994), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 986 (1992); City Equities Anaheim v. Lincoln Plaza Dev. Co. (In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd.), 22 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1994)
    Bankruptcy court could appropriately enforce a settlement agreement by summary proceedings commenced by motion without necessity of an adversary proceeding, oral testimony or cross-examination where material facts concerning the existence or terms of a settlement were not in dispute.  

In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd, 22 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1994)
    Settlement enforcement - settlement agreement may be summarily enforced where no material facts concerning the existence of terms of the agreement are in dispute

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994)
    Court may not enforce a settlement agreement after case is dismissed unless agreement is incorporated into dismissal or court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement

Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1991)
    Settlement agreement re sale or transfer of interest in real estate must be signed by party to be charged under Civ. Code 1624(c).    Those not covered by the statute of frauds are still enforceable if common sense says they are divisible.

Wilkinson v. FBI, 922 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1991)
    District courts have the inherent power to enforce settlement agreements.

In re MGS Marketing, 111 B.R. 264 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1990)
    Settlement of suit reversed for failure to show it was in best interest of estate

Miller v. Christopher, 887 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1989)
    Good faith settlement bars contribution

In re A&C Properties, 784 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 854 (1986)
    Factors governing review of settlements.

Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1989)
    Silence...as acceptance and estoppel - Cal. Law

In re Haynes, 97 B.R. 1007 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989)
    Oral settlement agreement made on the record is binding