Case law

Ankhenaten Ra El v. Crain

560 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 4, 2008

Moreover, Plaintiff (1) does not dispute that Brown supplied all of the documents requested except those with *949 held as privileged; (2) supplies no evidence that any delay by Brown was purposeful and done in bad faith, … V.

Southern California District Council of Laborers & Its Affiliated Local 1184 v. Ordman

318 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 9, 1970

See McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, Etc., 372 U.S. 10 , 83 S.Ct. 671 , 9 L.Ed.2d 547 (1963); Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 , 79 S.Ct. 180 , 3 L.Ed.2d 210 (1958); Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. … Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 300 , 64 S.Ct. 95, 97 , 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943).

Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.

258 F.R.D. 361 · District Court, C.D. California · May 18, 2009

v. … Brown, 249 F.R.D. at 585-86 . .

Haugen v. Marshall

740 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 22, 2010

The Governor may review the Board’s parole decisions and is authorized to reverse or modify them, applying the same standards that the Board applies. Cal. Const, art. V, § 8, subd. (b); Cal. Penal Code § 3041.2 . … See McQuillion v.

Spin Master, Ltd. v. ZOBMONDO ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

778 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 22, 2011

November 2001 v. … Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir.1990); see also eCash Techs., Inc. v.

Jackson v. Wise

390 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 4, 1975

Bey v. … [quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 at 570-571 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), which cited Morrissey v. Brewer].

Milot v. Haws

628 F. Supp. 2d 1152 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 8, 2009

Jancsek v. Oregon Board of Parole, 833 F.2d 1389,1390 (9th Cir.1987); see also Pedro v. Oregon Parole Board, 825 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 726 , 98 L.Ed.2d 675 (1988). … See Task v.

Paddock v. Mendoza-Powers

674 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 2, 2009

Inst. v. … Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). 3 . Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 , 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987). 4 .

Timur Allaiarov v. Board of Immigration Appeals et al

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 5, 2026

CV 26-5053 FMO (AJRx) Date August 5, 2026 Title Timur Allaiarov v. Board of Immigration Appeals et al Present: The Honorable — Fernando M. … P. 4 & 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R.

National Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Bowen

662 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, C.D. California · May 7, 1987

The provider may then appeal by requesting a hearing before the Provider Review Board (the “Board”). … Vista Hill Foundation, Inc. v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 556, 559 (9th Cir.1985).

Tidwell v. Marshall

526 F. Supp. 2d 1031 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 30, 2007

People v. … Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). 5 . Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 , 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987). 6 .

Stabile v. Paul Smith Ltd.

137 F. Supp. 3d 1173 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 31, 2015

(Id. ¶ 28.) 7 The letter was added to the inspiration board. (Id.) … Extrapolations # 3 consists of- dark, earth-toned browns, reds, blues, and greens with a single brighter orange cylinder- against a light-blue background.

Lee v. Marshall

843 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 27, 1993

Bustamante v. Eyman, 456 F.2d 269, 271 (9th Cir.1972); United States v. Kupau, 781 F.2d at 743 ; U.S. v. Brown, 832 F.2d 128 (9th Cir.1987). … This inability to quantify is illustrated by the decisions in U.S. v. Brown, 832 F.2d 128 (9th Cir.1987) and U.S. v. Pittman, 449 F.2d 1284 (9th Cir.1971).

Doering v. Scandinavian Airlines System

329 F. Supp. 1081 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 23, 1971

Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc., 201 F.Supp. 504, 506-507 (S.D.N.Y.1962); Mason v. BOAC, 1961 U.S. & Can.Av. 617, 618 (S.D.N.Y.1956); Brown v. … Mason v. BOAC, supra; Brown v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, supra.

County of Orange v. Fuji Securities, Inc.

31 F. Supp. 2d 768 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 16, 1998

See Delaney v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 785, 798 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 753 , 789 P.2d 934 (1990); see also Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., 48 Cal.3d 711, 724 , 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 (1989). … DiGiorgio Fruit Corp. v. Dept. of Employment, 56 Cal.2d 54, 61-62 , 13 Cal.Rptr. 663 , 362 P.2d 487 (1961); Mudd v. McColgan, 30 Cal.2d 463, 470 , 183 P.2d 10 (1947); Veterans’ Welfare Board v.

DTA Corp. v. J & J Enterprises

715 F. Supp. 290 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 28, 1988

See In re Smith, 714 F.2d at 1134 (Fed.Cir.1983) (citing City of Elizabeth v. … See In re Smith, 714 F.2d at 1135 (citing Robbins, Co. v. Lawrence Mfg.

Kass v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc.

431 F. Supp. 1037 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 18, 1977

Kauder v. United Board & Carton Corporation, 199 F.Supp. 420, 423 (S.D.N.Y., 1961). … In Bosche v.

United States v. Bradt

280 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 8, 1968

Flynn v. Vevelstad, 119 F.Supp. 93 , 14 Alaska 93 (1954), aff’d 230 F.2d 695 , 16 Alaska 83 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 827 , 77 S.Ct. 40 , 1 L.Ed.2d 49 (1956); Monk v. United Life & Accident Ins. … Hills v. Eisenhart, 156 F.Supp. 902 (N.D.Calif.1957), aff’d 256 F.2d 609 (9th Cir.1958), cert. denied 358 U.S. 832 , 79 S.Ct. 53 , 3 L.Ed.2d 70 (1958).

Courtney v. Secretary of Air Force

267 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, C.D. California · May 12, 1967

Prior to Harmon v. … See Orloff v.

United States v. General Dynamics Corp.

644 F. Supp. 1497 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 28, 1986

The Board finds its historical roots in joint directives within DOD, and is now provided for by statute. See, 41 U.S.C. Section 607 . The Supreme Court alluded to the Board’s function in United States v. … The Court notes that the stay will not become fully effective until the Defendant, General Dynamics, reapplies for consideration of this matter by the Board. See, Israel v.