Case law

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.

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.

United States v. Murphy

27 F. Cas. 37 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 1856

S. v. Hensley [unreported]. The testimony of Gen. Sutter shows the original grantee. Ernest Rufus, to have been one of those in whose favor the general title issued. … The decision of the board must therefore be affirmed, and a decree of confirmation entered.

Wilcher v. Gain

311 F. Supp. 754 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 12, 1970

Brazier v. Cherry, 5 Cir., 293 F.2d 401 (1961); Pritchard v. Smith, 8 Cir., 289 F.2d 153 , 88 A.L.R.2d 1146 (1961). … Brown v. Town of Caliente, 9 Cir., 392 F.2d 546 (1968); Diamond v. Pitchess, 9 Cir., 411 F.2d 565 (1969). This Court cannot see how it can avoid the import of these decisions by higher courts.

Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc.

73 F.R.D. 289 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 11, 1976

However, this major impediment to the simplified, across-the-board plant seniority concept has now been removed. … Across-the-board use of “seasonal seniority dates” by all employees is a better accommodation of the competing interests at stake here.

Pacheco

District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2026

Comm’rs v. … Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Monell, 436 U.S. at 691.

Barijaos

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

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009); see also 11 Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011). … See Board 13 of Cty. Comm'rs. of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997).

Lewis v. Western Airlines, Inc.

379 F. Supp. 684 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 9, 1974

The Court cited as authority Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 329 F.2d 3 (3d Cir. 1964), and Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297 , 64 S.Ct. 95 , 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943). … Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 301 , 64 S.Ct. •95, 97, 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943).

Sonista, Inc. v. Hsieh

348 F. Supp. 2d 1089 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2004

Sonista’s board never met to give Hsieh such approval. Liou Dec. ¶ 6. … Hsieh responds simply that he was unaware that he needed board approval for such a sale.

Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda

859 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2012

Defendant Brown, a nurse, performed Plaintiffs intake assessment. Defendant Campos supervised the nursing staff. Id. ¶ 13. … Superior Court, 30 Cal.App.4th 936, 941 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 (1994); Rotary Club of Duarte v. Board of Directors, 178 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1059 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 213 (1986)).

Pinterest Inc. v. Pintrips Inc.

15 F. Supp. 3d 992 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 14, 2014

In addition to posting content to their own boards, Pinterest users can browse other users’ boards to seek out content that interests them. … Epstein v. Wash.

Carr v. First Nationwide Bank

816 F. Supp. 1476 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 2, 1993

Alexander v. … DeGeare v.

Petersen v. J. F. Cunningham Co.

77 F. 211 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 1896

As was said in the case of Broux v. … As, for instance, was done in the case of Ferrera v. The Talent, Fed. Cas. No. 4,745.

Jones v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

912 F. Supp. 2d 889 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2012

Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. C 11-03082 LB, 2012 WL 3138013 , at *9 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 1, 2012) motion to certify appeal granted, No. C 11-03082 LB, 2012 WL 4364588 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 24, 2012). … Brown, 2012 WL 3138013 , at *8. Thus, Brown’s preemption analysis applies generally to products governed by the OFPA, and not only to cosmetics.

Olsen v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

480 F. Supp. 773 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 21, 1979

Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1011-13 (1st Cir. 1979); Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24 , 99 S.Ct. 295 , 58 L.Ed.2d 216 (1978). … Healthy City School District Board of Education v.

Freeman v. ABC Legal Services, Inc.

877 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 3, 2012

See Freeman v. … However, the policies and practices at issue in that case plainly applied to the named plaintiffs specifically; there was no question as to whether they would be subject to the Board’s actions.

Riley v. Vallejo Ferry Co.

173 F. 331 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 1909

on January 18, 1907, the owner and engaged in operating the Vallejo, as a common carrier of passengers, between the city of Vallejo and Mare Island,' and on the afternoon of that day the deceased, in attempting to go on board … Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, vol. 2, § 490; Grimes v. Penn. Co. (C. C.) 36 Fed. 72 .

Ex parte Kaichiro Sugimoto

33 F.2d 926 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 5, 1929

Akira Ono v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 267 F. 359 . … Hurst v. Nagle (C. C. A.) 30 F.(2d) 346 .

Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co. v. National Motor Bearing Co.

50 F. Supp. 458 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 18, 1943

As a result the decision therein of the Examiner of Interferences was appealable in the Patent Office to the Board of Appeals, and was so appealed, while the identically worded decision of the Board of Interference Examiners … Over 50 years ago the Supreme Court held, in Morgan v.

San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District

413 F. Supp. 2d 1051 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 8, 2005

INTRODUCTION A half-century ago, in the landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 , 74 S.Ct. 686 , 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), the Supreme Court called for an end to de jure school segregation. … In doing so, it intended to improve the quality of education all students received by equalizing access, furthering diversity and giving effect to every child’s right to equal educational opportunity under Brown v.