Case law

Pinterest, Inc. v. Pintrips, Inc.

140 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 21, 2015

Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. … may post an email message to a bulletin board in much the same way that they would pin a note on a cork board).

McCormick S. S. Co. v. United States

16 F. Supp. 45 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 14, 1936

The case of Lucking v. Detroit & Cleveland Nav. … S.C.A. § 126), authorizing the President to abolish boards like the United States Shipping Board, a separate entity, and transfer the boards’ functions to such an executive branch of the government as the Department of Commerce

Unger v. Del E. Webb Corporation

233 F. Supp. 713 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 1964

Kelly v. United States Steel Corp. … The board of directors regularly holds its meetings in Phoenix and there is no delegation of the board’s authority to executive or operations committees.

Adams v. State of California

176 F. Supp. 456 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 1959

plaintiffs to remand this action to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Sutter, from which court the case was removed by the State of California and two of its agencies, the Reclamation Board … Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 178 U.S. 239 , 20 S.Ct. 867 , 44 L.Ed. 1052 , and Defiance Water Co. v. City of Defiance, 191 U.S. 184 , 24 S.Ct. 63 , 48 L.Ed. 140 ).

Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security

62 F. Supp. 3d 909 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 14, 2014

Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 529 , 124 S.Ct. 2633 , 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004), and from the stigma and humiliation of a public denial of boarding and incarceration, Paul v. … See Patel v.

Guillory v. Contra Costa County

District Court, N.D. California · May 7, 2025

Brown, 724 F.3d 1255, 1259 (9th Cir. 2013); see also 1 officers ‘impos[e] allegedly unconstitutional parole conditions.’” Chavez v. Robinson, 12 F.4th at 2 997 (citing Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 839–40). … See Maryland v.

Smith v. Dutra Trucking Company

410 F. Supp. 513 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 2, 1976

B. v. … The obvious purpose of this amendment was to have the Board and the courts apply general agency principles in distinguishing between employees and independent contractors under the Act.” N. L. R. B. v.

Pacheco v. United States

18 F. Cas. 933 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 15, 1855

S. v. Fremont [18 How. (59 U. S.) 30] apply therefore with great force to this case. … The remaining objection to this claim which is noticed in the opnion of the board is, that the grant is vague and general, and has never been located by competent authority.

Sawyer v. Duffy

60 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 1945

Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 , 55 S.Ct. 340 , 79 L.Ed. 791 , 98 A.L.R. 406 ; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U.S. 179, 181 , 27 S.Ct. 459 , 51 L.Ed. 760 ; Mooney v. … People v. Swafford, 65 Cal. 223 , 3 P. 809 ; Reagan v. United States, 9 Cir., 202 F. 488, 490 , 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 583; Callahan v. United States, 9 Cir., 240 F. 683 .

Hensala v. Department of the Air Force

148 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, N.D. California · May 25, 2001

Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 113 , 112 S.Ct. 1046 , 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992). … Plaintiff cites Cooper v. Caldera, 96 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D.Kan.2000), Cobb v. Danzig, 190 F.R.D. 564 (S.D.Cal.1999), and Simmons v. Marsh, 564 F.Supp. 379 (D.D.C.1983), as supporting his request for more discovery.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Armstrong

356 F. Supp. 131 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 16, 1973

Environmental Defense Fund v. Armstrong, supra, at 61 . … As the Court said in its opinion, Environmental Defense Fund v.

Retiree Support Group v. Contra Costa County

944 F. Supp. 2d 799 · District Court, N.D. California · May 8, 2013

Ass’n of Orange Cnty., Inc. v. … Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.2012).

Galaviz v. Berg

763 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 3, 2011

See, e.g., Stolow v. … Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509 , 512-513 (9th Cir.1988).

Ex Parte Wells

90 F. Supp. 855 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 30, 1950

Justice Field, in Hagar v. … Justice Murphy stated in Young v.

California Tow Truck Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco

928 F. Supp. 2d 1157 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 2, 2013

Wrong Kind of Safety CTTA argues that, when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors (“Board”) enacted the Permit System, it was concerned with the wrong kind of safety. … Id. § 3052(a)(v).

Salinas Valley Community Federal Credit Union v. National Credit Union Administration

564 F. Supp. 701 · District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 1983

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … In Fahey v.

Teschemacher v. United States

23 F. Cas. 862 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 1855

When the opinion of the supreme court in the case of Fremont v. U. S. [17 How. (58 U. … A map ■ of the land described in the grant was offered in evidence before the board.

United States v. Scavengers Protective Ass'n

105 F. Supp. 656 · District Court, N.D. California · May 9, 1952

Disputes as to contract prices are resolved by the Board of Health. … See California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U.S. 306 , 26 S.Ct. 100 , 50 L.Ed. 204 ; Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 , 54 S.Ct. 505 , 78 L.Ed. 940 . . In Davies Warehouse Co. v.

Jonathan Browning, Inc. v. Venetian Casino Resort LLC

816 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 6, 2009

Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1472 (9th Cir.1992). … Jonathan Browning, Inc. v. Venetian Casino Resort LLC, 2009 WL 1764652 , *1 (N.D.Cal. June 18, 2009). 2 .

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

273 F. 937 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 1921

They must accord the same rights and the same privileges to the board of supervisors, and the mere fact that they may differ from the board in their conclusions does not necessarily establish the charge of confiscating private … It is enough if we cannot say that it was impossible for a fair-minded board to come to the result which toas reached.” (Italics supplied). San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 441 , 23 Sup.