Case law

Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. County of Riverside

302 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 9, 1967

Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. *600 97 , 87 S.Ct. 1544 , 18 L.Ed.2d 643 (5/22/67). … And whether or not such boards are “lawfully” in existence are questions of State law which can better be resolved by the State courts than any preliminary guess on the part of this Court as to how the State should construe

Pena v. Downey Savings & Loan, Ass'n

929 F. Supp. 1308 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 25, 1996

See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 2841 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983); Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. … Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 63 , 107 S.Ct. at 1546 ; Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 13-14 , 103 S.Ct. at 2848-49 ; Felton v.

Carter v. Gibbs

690 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 8, 1988

See Doski v. M. … In Barrentine v.

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Mebtahi

148 F. Supp. 2d 1019 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 30, 2000

in the amount of approximately $2,600 after the State Board of Equalization. … See Patel v.

California ex rel. TIG Insurance Co. v. Culpepper

235 F. Supp. 3d 1121 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 13, 2016

See, e.g., Southgate Recreation & Park Dist. v. … .”); EFund Capital Partners v.

San Bernardino Public Employees Ass'n v. Stout

946 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 13, 1996

Colleges v. … See, e.g., Kentucky v.

United States v. $97,667.00 in U.S. Currency

538 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 5, 2007

United States v. … United States v.

Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp.

879 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 25, 2012

See Russello v. … (Nigeria) Ltd. v.

Microsoft Corp. v. Yokohama Telecom Corp.

993 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 5, 1998

Although commercial speech is a second-class right which receives less scrutiny than other first amendment claims, Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. … See Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 473-74 , 109 S.Ct. 3028 , 106 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989) (narrowly defining commercial speech as "proposfing] a commercial transaction”).

Gerard F. Cellette v. Dale Pomerantz

District Court, C.D. California · Aug 10, 2022

Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892–93 22 (9th Cir. 2011). However, a court need not accept as true “allegations that are merely 23 conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” … See, e.g., Brown 18 v. Cal.

United States v. Phillips Petroleum Company

367 F. Supp. 1226 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 13, 1973

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 323 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962). As was stated in United States v. … Ct. 1715 ; further a trend toward concentration, United States v. Pabst Brewing Co., 384 U.S. 546 , 86 S.Ct. 1665 , 16 L.Ed.2d 765 (1966); United States v. Von’s Grocery Co., supra; Brown Shoe Co. v.

Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. Fleischer

26 F. Supp. 2d 1220 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 24, 1998

In that ease, the California Board of Dental Examiners found Damascus mentally disabled in 1991. Nevertheless, the Board allowed him to continue to practice under supervision. … Co. v.

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

477 F. Supp. 553 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 18, 1979

Plaintiff has argued that Parker v. Brown has lost its effect through the decisions in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 , 95 S.Ct. 2004 , 44 L.Ed.2d 572 (1975) and LaFayette v. … States may sue, Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159 , 62 S.Ct. 972 , 86 L.Ed. 1346 (1942), but not be sued, Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), under the antitrust laws.

Slaieh v. Simons

584 B.R. 28 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 16, 2018

Neither does failing to board up the missing windows and doors constitute a "wrongful act" by Trustee. … In Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v.

Hubbs v. County of San Bernardino, CA

538 F. Supp. 2d 1254 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 7, 2008

Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 997; Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 934 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 820 , 126 S.Ct. 351 , 163 L.Ed.2d 61 (2005); see also, e.g., Board v. … Clayburn v. Schirmer, 2007 WL 1456065 , *4 (E.D.Cal.); Brown v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 397124 , *3 (E.D.Cal.). c.

Flexivan Leasing, Inc. v. M/V C.C. San Francisco

628 F. Supp. 1077 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 20, 1985

M/V Cosmos, et al., 1983 AMC 1483 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Transamerica ICS, Inc., v. M/V Panatlantic, 1984 AMC 489 (S.D.Fla.1983). … Plaintiffs, on the other hand, submit that by furnishing containers to “CC Lines” for exclusive use on board its fleet of container vessels, and by virtue of their actual use on board the “CC San Francisco,” plaintiffs furnished

Luk v. Rosenberg

271 F. Supp. 485 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 22, 1967

Melone v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 355 F.2d 533 (CCA 7th 1966); Say v. Del Guercio, 237 F.2d 715 (CCA 9th 1956) ; Polites v. … Szlajmer v.

Laine v. Weinberger

541 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 18, 1982

Catholic Action of Hawaii, Etc., v. Brown, 468 F.Supp. 190 (D.Hawaii 1979). … Catholic Action of Hawaii, Etc., v. Brown, 643 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1980). Certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court on April 6, 1981, and its decision was rendered on December 1, 1981. Weinberger v.

Villanueva-Bustillos v. Marin

370 F. Supp. 3d 1083 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 23, 2018

" ( Corrales v. … Sept. 30, 2015) (finding district court lacked jurisdiction to stay petitioner's removal pending the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision on his motion to reopen); Ma v.

Probodanu v. Sessions

387 F. Supp. 3d 1031 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 28, 2019

Santosa v. Holder , 422 F. App'x 643 , 644 (9th Cir. 2011). The Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissed Mr. … If the Board declines to reopen proceedings, they may petition for review of that decision with the Ninth Circuit. Kucana v.