Case law

Tremaine Carroll v. State of California, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 27, 2025

McClain v. Am. Credit Resol., Inc., 2020 WL 8619963, at *2 (E.D. Cal. … Corp. v. 8 | Angell, Holmes & Lea, 838 F.2d 395, 395-96 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Fracasse v. Brent, 494 9 | P.2d9 (1972)).

Assembly of California v. United States Department of Commerce

797 F. Supp. 1554 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 10, 1992

Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Eng. Corp., 421 U.S. 168, 188 , 95 S.Ct. 1491, 1502 , 44 L.Ed.2d 57 (1975) (emphasis added). However, in some cases an inter-agency memorandum is not itself circulated. … Quarles v.

Narayan v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc.

284 F. Supp. 3d 1076 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 6, 2018

Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal., Inc. , 68 Cal.App.4th 101 , 112, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 60 (2000). … Kashian v. Harriman , 98 Cal.App.4th 892 , 914, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 576 (2002) (quoting, in part, Brown v. Kelly Broad. Co. , 48 Cal.3d 711 , 727, 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 (1989) ).

Williams v. County of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California · May 27, 2021

Browns, or Plaintiff. … Comm’rs of Bryan Cty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 400 (1997); Burke 12 v. County of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009); Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 13 290 F.3d 1175, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2002).

Peterson v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

451 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2006

State Personnel Board does not control here. … Plaintiff's Response at 7-8 (quoting State Personnel Board v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission, 39 Cal.3d 422 , 217 Cal.Rptr. 16 , 703 P.2d 354 (1985)).

Knott v. Barnhart

269 F. Supp. 2d 1228 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 18, 2003

Adduddell v. Board of Administration, 8 Cal.App.3d 243 , 87 Cal.Rptr. 268 (1970). Government Code § 21364 entitles a surviving spouse to special death benefits under the Public Employees’ Retirement Law. … Moreover, putative spouses have been awarded spousal benefits under the civil service retirement statute ( 5 U.S.C. § 8341 ), Brown v.

DeFazio v. Hollister, Inc.

854 F. Supp. 2d 770 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 6, 2012

Plan v. … Hollister Board Members The Trustee defendants who also served on the Hollister Board are Zwirner and Stempinski and the non-trustee defendants who served on the Hollister Board are Winn and Herbert.

(PC) Abdullah v. Dacuycuy

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 29, 2020

Brown’s discharge order by refusing to provide a waterproof bandage when 12 plaintiff showered. … Brown operated on 22 plaintiff that same day. This surgery required Dr.

Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp

746 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 6, 1990

Turner v. … Co. v.

(PC) J'Weial v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2021

Monell, 436 U.S. at 690; Board of the 20 County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 402-04 (1997); Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 21 714 (9th Cir. 1995). … See, e.g., Brown v. Cal.

Walter W. Wells v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 2021

County of Stanislaus, et al., 18-cv-496-TLN-BAM; Quintanar v. County of Stanislaus, et al., 18-cv-1403-TLN-BAM; Estate of Carson v. … SEC v. Schroeder, 2009 WL 98531 at *5-6 (N.D. Cal.

Chestnut

District Court, E.D. California · May 4, 2026

Petitioner’s deadline to appeal the IJ’s bond ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was April 20, 2026. Dkt. No. 1, at pg. 36, Dkt. No. 7 at pg. 2. … Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 1979); Brown v. Blanckensee, 857 F. App’x 289, 290 (9th Cir. 2021).

Mayes v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

917 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 9, 2013

The court concluded that “it is for the Board ‘in the first instance’ to consider the precise boundaries of the ‘mutual aid and protection clause’ of § 7”; it approved of the Board’s determination that the report, which was … Union v.

Athwal v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 2021

County of Stanislaus, et al., 18-cv-496-TLN-BAM; Quintanar v. County of Stanislaus, et al., 18-cv-1403-TLN-BAM; Estate of Carson v. … SEC v. Schroeder, 2009 WL 98531 at *5-6 (N.D. Cal.

Garber v. City of Clovis

698 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2010

Plaintiffs basis their continuing violation argument on Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs., 18 Cal.2d 427 , 116 P.2d 37 (1941). … Section 910.8 provides that “[i]f, in the opinion of the board or the person designated by it, a claim as presented fails to comply substantially with the requirements of Sections 910 ..., the board or the person may, at

(HC) Emasealu v. United States

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 19, 2023

Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 24 1990). Jurisdiction by the custodial district “is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and 25 the accompanying custodial change.” Francis v. … Marrero v.

Shirely

District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2026

Doe I v. … Dittman, 191 F.3d at 11 1025–26 (citing Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985)); see also Brown v. 12 Cal.

Williams v. County of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2021

Comm’rs of Bryan Cty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 400 (1997); Burke 21 v. County of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009); Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 22 290 F.3d 1175, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2002). … The California Government Claims 25 Act requires that a tort claim against a public entity or its employees be presented to the 26 California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board no more than six months after

San Joaquin River Group Authority v. National Marine Fisheries Service

819 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2011

Category Scallop Fishermen v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 635 F.3d 106 , 112 n. 15 (3d Cir.2011); J.H. Miles & Co., Inc. v. Brown, 910 F.Supp. 1138, 1157-59 (E.D.Va.1995). … The Board then describes how the numeric flow objectives could look, using a placeholder “X” in lieu of actual flow requirements: Thus, the State Water Board has determined that approximately X percent (e.g. 20-60 percent

Williams v. Vasquez

817 F. Supp. 1443 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 1993

California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 , 540 n. *, 107 S.Ct. 837 , 838 n. *, 93 L.Ed.2d 934 (1987); Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 53-54 , 104 S.Ct. 871 , 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984); California v. … Brown v. Borg, 951 F.2d 1011, 1014 (9th Cir.1991) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)).