Case law

Kellotat (Philip Charles) v. Members of Oregon State Parole Board

749 F.2d 37 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 13, 1984

749 F.2d 37 Kellotat (Philip Charles) v. Members of Oregon State Parole Board NO. 84-3563 United States Court of Appeals, ninth Circuit. NOV 13, 1984 1 Appeal From: D.Or. 2 AFFIRMED.

Real Fresh, Inc. v. Board of Agriculture, State of Hawaii

703 F.2d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 8, 1983

703 F.2d 577 Real Fresh, Inc. v. Board of Agriculture, State of Hawaii 81-4573 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Ninth Circuit 3/8/83 D.Hawaii REVERSED AND REMANDED

Lannon v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of State of California

577 F.2d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 14, 1978

577 F.2d 751 Lannon v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of State of California No. 77-3560 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 6/14/78 1 N.D.Cal. AFFIRMED

United States v. United States District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles, California, John Z. Delorean, Real-Party-In-Interest

717 F.2d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 30, 1983

Our construction of Brown is consistent with the uniform position of other circuits both before and after the Brown decision. In Fruehauf Corp. v. … NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 , 98 S.Ct. 2311, 2327 , 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978); Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 22 , 94 S.Ct. 1028, 1039 , 39 L.Ed.2d 123 (1974).

Sutherland v. Kaonohi Ohana, Ltd.

776 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 22, 1985

Brown, vice-president of appellee, acting for appellee corporation’s board of directors, agreed to sell the .parcel of land to appellants for $1.4 million. … On June 12, Brown informed appellants that at the request of Ferreira’s creditors he had accepted the new offer on behalf of appellee’s board of directors.

National Labor Relations Board v. Ironworkers Local 433

850 F.2d 551 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1988

On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before BROWNING, HUG, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. … Arts Ctr. v.

Lovell Brown v. B. Curry

451 F. App'x 693 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2011

BROWN, No. 09-16162 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01474-MCE v. MEMORANDUM * B. … Moreover, Brown has not made a credible showing of actual innocence sufficient to allow review of his time-barred claims. See Lee v. Lampert, No. 09-35276, 2011 WL 3275947, at *2, *13 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011).

JEROME BROWN v. DARCY

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 21, 2014

All four claims hinge on whether there was probable cause to arrest and prosecute Brown for robbery. See Cabrera v. … Davenpeck v.

George Brown v. Brotman Medical Center

571 F. App'x 572 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2014

Humble v. Boeing Co., 305 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2002). Brown’s IIED claim is based on allegations of assault and battery and age discrimination by Brotman, behavior not covered by the CBA. … Brown’s claim is barred as it was not filed within the applicable six-month statute of limitations for 6 Section 301 claims. See DelCostello v.

McAndrew v. Selective Service Board No. 22, 35

438 F.2d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 12, 1971

This circuit has held that a registrant’s demand to be represented by counsel at a draft board hearing may be rejected, as it was here. United States v. Evans, 9 Cir., 425 F.2d 302 .

Jeffrey Sulitzer v. Joseph Tippins

31 F.4th 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 17, 2022

With respect to the Sherman Act claim, the district court first rejected the Board Actors’ argument that they were entitled to state-action antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). … Noting that the Board Actors could not demonstrate active state supervision, the district court rejected their argument that they were home free under Parker v. Brown’s state-action immunity doctrine.

National Labor Relations Board v. St. Francis Hospital of Lynwood, a Corporation

601 F.2d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 1979

The Board cites to this court’s opinion in NLRB v. … As noted by the Supreme Court in Labor Board v. I. & M.

National Labor Relations Board v. Ironworkers Local Union No. 505

794 F.2d 1474 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1986

NLRB v. … We accord considerable deference to the Board’s interpretation and application of the National Labor Relations Act, Carpenters Union Local No. 25 v. NLRB, 769 F.2d 574 , 579 (9th Cir.1985) (citing Ford Motor Co. v.

General Teamsters Local No. 162 v. National Labor Relations Board

782 F.2d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1986

The Board and the courts have consistently held that throwing objects at moving vehicles constitutes serious strike misconduct for which employees may be discharged. See, e.g., NLRB v. … Standard of Review The Board’s discretion in the selection of appropriate remedies is exceedingly broad and is to be given special respect by reviewing courts. NLRB v.

Anaya, III v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board

839 F.2d 1349 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 19, 1988

ANAYA, III, Consultant and former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, Respondents-Appellees. … See Somerfield v.

Nick Allen Klubnikin v. United States

227 F.2d 87 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 27, 1956

See Dickinson v. United States, 1953, 346 U.S. 389 , 74 S.Ct. 152 , 98 L.Ed. 132 ; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 258 . … The burden was on appellant to establish, by information presented to his draft board, a prima facie showing of his eligibility for a III-A classification. De Moss v.

Pacific Southwest Airlines, and Pacific Southwest Airmotive v. National Labor Relations Board

587 F.2d 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 18, 1978

This expressly contradicts the Board’s conclusion. Although contract interpretations are not binding in Board representation proceedings, see NLRB v. Horn & Hardart Co., 439 F.2d at 680 ; Local 7-210, O.C.A.W. v. … The Board cannot delegate this preliminary duty to the employees. Compare NLRB v. Underwood Machinery Co., 179 F.2d 118 (1st Cir. 1949) with Marshall Field & Co. v. NLRB, 135 F.2d 391 (7th Cir. 1943) and NLRB v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, Etc.

499 F.2d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 7, 1974

PER CURIAM: This is an application of the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) for enforcement of its order against Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO (“the Union”). … The Board may properly enter a broad order such as this one here if a Union has demonstrated a “proclivity” to violate the secondary boycott provisions of the Act. N. L. R. B. v.

Dasisa v. California State University Board of Education

307 F. App'x 117 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 14, 2009

We review for an abuse of discretion, Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm. … P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A)(vi); United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 513 F.3d 1085, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2008).

Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP

590 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 2009

In Sosa v. … Gallegos v.