Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,021 results
0.70s
Anthony J. Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2025
v. … Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 494 (emphasis in 11 original).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 1, 2019
Short v. … Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d at 677. 18 The State’s Claim that the Act is a procedural “times, places and manner” 19 requirement permissible under the Elections Clause is simply not viable.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(SS) Schillaci v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2021
See 11 Brown v. Berryhill, 697 F. … (Br. 16, citing Brown-Hunter v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2020
Ylst v. … See, e.g., Myers v. Lorenzo, 2019 WL 5390035 (E.D. Cal. 2019); 12 Gordon v. premo, 757 Fed.Appx. 627 (9th Cir. 2019). But cf. Adams v. Frauenheim, 2018 WL 3046939 (N.D.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDonald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Padilla
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 2, 2019
Short v. … Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d at 677. 21 The State’s Claim that the Act is a procedural “times, places and manner” 22 requirement permissible under the Elections Clause is simply not viable.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 28, 2026
Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 13 745 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the district judge’s discretion to decline to consider new 14 arguments raised in objections to findings and recommendations). … United States v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDonald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Padilla
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 1, 2019
Short v. … Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d at 677. 18 The State’s Claim that the Act is a procedural “times, places and manner” 19 requirement permissible under the Elections Clause is simply not viable.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 19, 2019
Thomas v. … v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 24, 2022
See 28 U.S.C. § 6 636(b)(1)(A); Brown v. Reif, No. 2:18-CV-01088-KJM-CKD-P, 2019 WL 989874, at *2 (E.D. 7 Cal. Mar. 1, 2019); SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013). … See Ramos v. Mayfield, No. 21-cv-1036- JLT-EPG, 2022 WL 95222, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022); Brown, 2019 WL 989874, at *2. Regardless, a request 1 for the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBetter Meat Co. v. Emergy, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 19, 2023
Emergy states disclosure of this information, including minutes from 8 confidential meetings of the Board of Directors, could “harm Emergy’s ability to negotiate with 9 future, potential members of its board” and would … information could harm Emergy’s ability to negotiate with future, potential members 6 of its board.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 5, 2023
Doe I v. … Brown v. 9 Or. Dep’t of Corr., 751 F.3d 983, 987–88 (9th Cir. 2014). 10 Here, it appears Plaintiff alleges that his retention in Ad-Seg violated his Fourteenth 11 Amendment right to Due Process.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 2, 2019
Short v. … Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d at 677. 21 The State’s Claim that the Act is a procedural “times, places and manner” 22 requirement permissible under the Elections Clause is simply not viable.
Cited 0 timesUnknown609 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 2009
Although the HUD-1 Settlement Statement provides that a loan origination fee was paid to Dan Brown Mortgage, who defendants contend was plaintiffs’ mortgage broker, plaintiffs allege that defendants were also acting as plaintiffs … Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join a Necessary Party Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) in that an indispensable party — Dan Brown Mortgage (“DBM”) — has not been joined in accordance with Rule 19.
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 1, 2024
.”); Brown v. … Slack v. McDaniel, 529 7 | U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 11, 2021
As an initial matter, 6 | the statute of limitations 1s “tolled while a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion process.” 7 | Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 943 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). … Jones v. 9 || Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation omitted). 10 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 19, 2021 (Doc.
Cited 0 timesUnknownTorres v. American Water Company
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 29, 2023
Vaca[ v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 [(1967)]; Hines[ v. Anchor Motor Freight], 424 U.S. 554 [(1976)] ; [United Parcel 3 Service, Inc. v.] … See NLRB v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownOleksandr V. M. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · May 27, 2026
Petitioner has appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). 10 The order of removal is now pending before the Board. … Gunn v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 3, 2023
United 12 States v. New York Tel. … Brown v. 24 Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 25 III.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 9, 2023
Miniace v. Pac. Martime Ass’n, 2006 WL 335389, at *2 (N.D. Cal. … Feb. 13, 28 2006) (compelling production of documents from association board members’ accounts where a 1 state statute gave the power to remove the current, non-employee board members); Adidas Am., 2 Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 26, 2025
Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978). 25 Under Rule 59(e), courts can alter or amend a judgment “to correct manifest errors of law or fact 26 upon which the judgment is based,” Turner v. … Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna