Case law

United States v. Wachtel

311 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 25, 1969

Oestereich v. Selective Service System Board No. 11, Cheyenne, Wyo., 393 U.S. 233 , 89 S.Ct. 414 , 21 L.Ed.2d 402 (1968). . See 38 U.S.L.W. 3102 . . Oit. supra note 1. . See Kimball v. … Selective Service Local Board No. 15, New York, N. Y., D.C., 283 F.Supp. 606 (D.C.1968) ; United States v. Stewart, 306 F.Supp. 29 (N.D.Calif. 1969). But see Breen v. Selective Service Local Bd.

Dunlap v. Association of Bay Area Governments

996 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 1998

Causes of actions based on an insurer’s negligent conduct generally fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of *967 the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Cal. Labor Code § 5300 ; 3 Cervantes v. Great American Ins. … , including the administrative director and the appeals board.

Borges v. County of Mendocino

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 13, 2020

Lopez v. … Instead, the FAC alleges that the conspiracy was initially formed between 25 Anzilotti and CDFW agent White, later “evolved to include members of the Board of Supervisors, 26 John McCowen and Carre Brown,” and that

Atmel Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

430 F. Supp. 2d 989 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 18, 2006

See F & H Construction v. … In Anthem, the plaintiff insured supplied circuit boards to a manufacturer, KLA, and KLA incorporated the circuit boards into scanners that KLA sold.

Hermann v. Port Blakely Mill Co.

71 F. 853 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 22, 1896

Beasley v. Fruit-Packing Co., 92 Cal. 388 , 28 Pac. 485 ; Drake v. Railroad Co. (Sup.) 30 N. Y. Supp. 671 ; Potter v. Railroad Co. (N. Y. App.) 32 N. E. 603 . … In Cooper v.

The Chapman

5 F. Cas. 471 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 13, 1864

S. v. The Malek Adhel [2 How. (43 U. … S. v. Klintock, 5 Wheat. [18 U.

Huettig & Schromm, Inc. v. Landscape Contractors Council

582 F. Supp. 1519 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 1984

Although Section 301 is not to be given a narrow reading, Smith v. … Co. v. Guyton, 692 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir.1982); Ayala v. United States, 550 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir.1977). The claim against Local 3 must therefore be dismissed.

United States v. Lau Sun Ho

85 F. 422 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 2, 1898

Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72 ; Steel v. Smelting Co.. 106 U. S. 447 , 1 Sup. Ct. 389. … The same rule applies to the action of a board or officer clothed by law with the duty of approving or rejecting claims against a county, town, or city. Thus, in Osterhoudt v. Rigney, 98 N.

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.

Air Transport Ass'n of America v. City and County of San Francisco

992 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 10, 1998

In Board of Trustees of Employees’ Retirement System of City of Baltimore v. … See Lott Constructors, Inc. v. Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders, 1994 WL 263851 (D.N.J.1994); Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. County of St.

Doe v. Chafee

355 F. Supp. 112 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 21, 1973

In Kennedy v. … Harmon v. Brucker, supra, held the “word ‘records’ . . . means records of military service.” Kennedy 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.

Ashbritt, Inc. v. Ghilarducci

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 1, 2021

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 5 U.S. 662, 681 (2009); see also Arizona Students’ Ass’n v. … See, e.g., 23 Ulrich v.

In Re Bextra & Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation

524 F. Supp. 2d 1166 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 19, 2007

FDA Decision Memorandum, April 6, 2005, at 4, Declaration of Loren Brown (“Brown Deck”) Exh. 16. … Celebrex 2007 Label, Brown Deck Exh. 3.

United States v. Golden Gate Bridge & Highway Dist.

37 F. Supp. 505 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 1941

Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 316 , 45 S.Ct. 324 , 69 L.Ed. 623 , 38 A.L.R. 286 ; Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 415, 421 , 26 L.Ed. 187 ; Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. … Webster’s 1931 Dictionary; Withey v. Fowler Co., 164 Iowa 377 , 145 N.W. 923, 927 ; Maner v. State, 181 Ga. 254 , 181 S.E. 856, 858 ; Allen v. City of Bellingham, 95 Wash. 12 , 163 P. 18, 27 ; Stewart v.

H.

District Court, N.D. California · May 18, 2026

SEALING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BOARD Re: Dkt. … See, e.g., Huff v. Thousandshores, Inc., No. 21-cv-02173-HSG, 2022 WL 547109, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2022). Plaintiffs have not provided a compelling reason for complete sealing.

Grigorescu v. Board of Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 2019

Yartfzoff v. … See Jones v.

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.

O'Brien v. Xpo CNW, Inc.

362 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 14, 2018

Keenan v. Allan , 91 F.3d 1275 , 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richards v. Combined Ins. … See, e.g. , Collins v.

Kahn v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees' & Bartenders International Union

469 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 3, 1977

In Blanchard v. … Article V, Section 16 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees’ and Bartenders’ International Union Constitution provides: “The General President with the approval of the General Executive Board, shall have the power to merge