Case law

Williams v. Townsend

283 F. Supp. 580 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 5, 1968

Smith v. Cremins, 308 F.2d 187, 189 , 98 A.L.R.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1962); Crawford v. Zeitler, 326 F.2d 119, 121 (6th Cir. 1964); Swan v. Board of Higher Education of City of New York, 319 F.2d 56, 59 (2d Cir. 1963). … Smith v. Cremins, supra; Swan v. Board of Higher Education of City of New York, supra; Beauregard v. Wingard, 230 F. Supp. 167, 171 (S.D.Cal.1964); Funk v. Cable, 251 F.Supp. 598, 599 (M.D.Pa.1966); Gaito v.

Ostby v. Oxnard Union High

209 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

At the hearing, however, the Board “changed its mind, fearing that transforming the results of the PPT into an official decision would expose the Board to liability for attorneys’ fees.” Id. … In Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified Sch.

Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan v. Northern Costume LLC

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 5, 2024

CV 24-5275 FMO (BFMx) Date August 5, 2024 Title Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan et al v. … P. 4 & 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962). 00 : 00

Ades v. Omni Hotels Management Corp.

46 F. Supp. 3d 999 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 8, 2014

Browning-Ferris, 492 U.S. at 264 , 109 S.Ct. 2909 . … See Brown v. Defender Security Comp., No. cv-12-7319-CAS (PJWx), 2012 WL 5308964 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 22, 2012) (finding that § 632.7, unlike § 632, is not limited to confidential communications); see also Flanagan v.

Rush v. Hyun Suk Kim

908 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 10, 2012

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir.2011). … The ADA Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”) is developed by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the “Access Board”), an independent federal agency composed of thirteen members of the public appointed

Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District

782 F. Supp. 1412 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 16, 1992

Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 864 , 102 S.Ct. 2799, 2806 , 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982). See also Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 , 106 S.Ct. 3159 , 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986); Jordan v. … Plaintiff has not Been Deprived of any Liberty Interest In Board of Regents v.

Standard Drywall, Inc. v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Association, Local 200

633 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, C.D. California · May 26, 2009

A final Board decision on that complaint is then appealable under § 10(f) of the Act. Foley-Wismer & Becker v. NLRB, 682 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1982) (en banc). … Laborers v. Opinski, 673 F.2d 1074, 1075 (9th Cir.1982). In Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Pacific Div.) v.

In Re Toyota Motor Corp.

790 F. Supp. 2d 1152 · District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2011

Brown amends her allegations as follows: Plaintiff Ebony Brown is a resident and citizen of Illinois. She owns a 2009 Toyota Camry. Ms. … Brown’s individual vehicle.” (Defs. Reply at 15.)

Petition for Naturalization of Madsen

267 F. Supp. 888 · District Court, C.D. California · May 19, 1967

Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41 , 71 S.Ct. 553 , 95 L.Ed. 729 (1951); Bachmann v. United States, 327 F.2d 415 (9th Cir. 1964). … On May 23, 1951, his Local Board classified petitioner as 4-C.

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Talbot

430 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 14, 2006

, V 12.) … See SEC v.

Schackman v. Arnebergh

258 F. Supp. 983 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 27, 1966

Moss v. Hornig, 214 F.Supp. 824 , 330-331 (D.Conn.1962); North American Iron and Steel Co. v. United States, 130 F.Supp. 723, 724 (E.D.N.Y. 1955); Hibben v. … Smith v. California (9 Cir. 1964) 336 F.2d 530, 534 ; Pierre v. Jordan (9 Cir. 1964) 333 F.2d 951, 956-957 ; Blue and. Gold Stamps-U-Save Premium Co. v.

Stones v. Los Angeles Community College District

572 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 28, 1983

Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1350 (9th Cir.1982); Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345, 1349 (9th Cir.1981). … Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 , 98 S.Ct. 3057 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978); V.O. Motors, Inc. v. California State Board of Equalization, 691 F.2d 871 (9th Cir.1982).

Cook v. Harding

190 F. Supp. 3d 921 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 6, 2016

See Moore v. … Distribs. v.

May v. Hunter

451 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 30, 2006

Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 , 111 S.Ct. 2590, 2594 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991); Shackleford v. … doubt.’ ” Lewis v.

Goleta Union Elementary School District v. Ordway

248 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 6, 2002

Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial ¶ 1:660 (The Rutter Group 2001). For example, in Snipe s v. … Porter v. Board of Tr. of Manhattan Beach, 307 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir.2002); Amanda J. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 882 (9th Cir.2001).

Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry v. Ironman Productions, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California · Feb 16, 2022

CV 21-9142-FMO (Jcx) Date February 16, 2022 Title Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry et al v. … P. 4 & 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R.

Bradley v. JUDGES OF SUPERIOR CT. FOR CTY. OF LOS ANGELES

372 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 25, 1974

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 474 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 416 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). The petitioners do not seriously challenge the constitutionality of the system of county-wide draw for jurors, in itself. … See Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 474 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). A pertinent admonition along these lines is contained in Chief Justice Warren’s opinion in McGowan v.

Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak

275 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, C.D. California · May 28, 2002

Declaration of Stewart Brown in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply ("Brown Reply Decl.”), Ex. 1. 71 . … (See Brown Deck, Ex. 17.)

Diaz v. Federal Express Corp.

373 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 21, 2005

(State Personnel Board Enrolled Bill Report, AB 2222 at 3.) The State Personnel Board cited Swenson v. … See Brown v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 246 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir.2001). As discussed above, a material issue of fact exists as to whether Plaintiff was disabled for purposes of FEHA.

Miller v. Davis

420 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 8, 2006

Mudd v. … In Knox v.