Case law

Piascik v. Heinze

178 F. Supp. 364 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 1959

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 . … Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 487 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 422 , 97 L.Ed. 469 .

Insurance Co. of North America v. G.I. Trucking Co.

783 F. Supp. 1251 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 31, 1991

Co. v. Brown Transport Corp., 597 F.Supp. 1258 (E.D.Va.1984). … Co. v. Brown Transport Corp., 597 F.Supp. 1258 (E.D.Va.1984); see also, Calpro Co. v. Consolidated Engineering Co., 502 F.supp. 707, 713-14 (N.D.Ga.1980); R.T.A. Corp. v.

Petersen v. Clark

285 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 1968

Compare Kimball v. Selective Service Local Board No. 15, 283 F.Supp. 606 (S.D.N.Y.1968). … See, e. g., Breen v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, 284 F.Supp. 749 (D.Conn.1968); compare Daniels v.

In re Wells Fargo & Co. S'holder Derivative Litig.

282 F. Supp. 3d 1074 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 4, 2017

Navarro v. Block , 250 F.3d 729 , 732 (9th Cir. 2001). … ."); Guttman v. Huang , 823 A.2d 492 , 504 (Del.

United Railroads v. City & County of San Francisco

239 F. 987 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 18, 1917

In Omnibus Railroad Co. v. … Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311 , 27 Sup. Ct. 289, 51 L. Ed. 499 ; German Alliance Insurance Co. v. Kansas, 233 U. S. 389 , 34 Sup. Ct. 612, 58 L. Ed. 1011 , L. R. A. 1915C, 1189; Rail & River Coal Co. v. Yaple (D.

The President

92 F. 673 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 23, 1899

In fulfillment of this agreement the libelants were taken on board the President at St. … J., in Young v.

Weir v. Curry

719 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 24, 2010

Board’s finding. … V & XIV.

Lyster v. First Nationwide Bank Financial Corp.

829 F. Supp. 1163 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 22, 1993

Holcomb v. … The Court in Merrell Dow made it quite clear that the secondary basis for federal question jurisdiction set forth in Franchise Tax Board is to be construed narrowly: “Franchise Tax Board ... did not purport to disturb the

Hardy v. National Kinney of California, Inc.

571 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 3, 1983

Crown Cork & Seal v. … of California v.

Copas v. East Bay Municipal Utility District

61 F. Supp. 2d 1017 · District Court, N.D. California · May 26, 1999

See Reich v. John Alden, 126 F.3d at 8 . … See, e.g., Dalheim v.

Dowell v. Contra Costa County

928 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 1, 2013

, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board ...” … Schneider v.

Shoultz v. McNamara

282 F. Supp. 315 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 1968

Plaintiff was notified that “the Screening Board [of the Department of Defense] has some new information that might affect * * * [his] * * * continued eligibility for a clearance”, and that the Screening Board was going to … This action of the Screening Board under Section V. B. transforms the personal interview into something more than a purely investigative hearing.

Souza v. Trustees of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust

460 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 16, 1978

Board of Trustees, supra, 564 F.2d at 1301 , and Giler v. Board of Trustees, supra, 509 F.2d at 849 , steadfastly adhered to this voluntary-involuntary distinction. IV. … Plaintiff is proven incorrect by Wilson v. Board of Trustees, supra, and Giler v. Board of Trustees, supra.

Lokey v. Richardson

534 F. Supp. 1015 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 16, 1982

In Quern v. … Meachum v. Fano, supra, and Montanye v.

Rohm v. Homer

367 F. Supp. 2d 1278 · District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 2005

Esparza” but that Homer could do nothing about it because “Esparza is an officer on the union board and employee.” Compl. ¶ 35. … See Brown v. Smith, 55 Cal.App.4th 767, 787-88 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 (1997) (amendment was intended only “to plug [a] hole in the civil rights law”).

National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Walters

589 F. Supp. 1302 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 12, 1984

Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282, 289 , 42 S.Ct. 106, 108 , 66 L.Ed.2d 239 (1921). See also *1310 Brown v. … See, e.g., Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v.

Koster v. Warren

176 F. Supp. 459 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 11, 1959

. *461 In addition to the individual defendants, Safeway itself has joined in the present motion and is defending the action at the behest of the present board of directors. … At each stage in the corporate transition, the action of the board of directors was approved by a vote of the stockholders.

In Re Interactive Network, Inc. Securities Litigation

948 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 18, 1996

Lockton, at all relevant times the Chairman of the Board and C.E.O. of .IN. … Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir.1980) (per. curiam)); see Poling v. Morgan, 829 F.2d 882, 886 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Foman v.

Lektophone Corp. v. Rola Co.

27 F.2d 758 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 1928

Moreover, Brown (British, 29,833), if not Lumire (986,477), had made use of the method in the prior art. And, even as here, these claims have been held invalid. See Lektophone Corp. v. Brandes Corporation (C. C. … Hopkins’ tympanum differs nothing from Brown’s (British, 29,833), Stroh’s (British, 3,393), and Dann and Lapp’s (338,660), and little from English’s (1,192,289), save in point of size and consequent volume, and Brown had

Martin v. Bowen

694 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 10, 1988

Accord, Jackson v. … See Robinson v. Bowen, 650 F.Supp. 1495 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd 828 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1987); Lyon v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1986); and Szlosek v.