Case law

Daniel v. Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd.

59 F. Supp. 2d 986 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 23, 1998

In Saiyed v. … Lopez v.

Hatch v. Heckler

626 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 6, 1986

In Iglinsky v. … Alternatively, in Worley v.

Michaeledes v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District

202 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, N.D. California · May 17, 2002

Board of Comm’rs, 333 F.Supp. 353, 354 (E.D.La.1971) (Board of Commissioners of Port of New Orleans) (see cases collected at 356 n. 10). … For example, the District appears to be managed by a Board of Directors composed of appointees of the boards of supervisors of six of the surrounding counties. See id., § 27510.

Bruce v. Suntech Power Holdings Co.

64 F. Supp. 3d 1365 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 12, 2014

Throughout the class period, Shi served as Suntech’s CEO, founder, board chairman, and largest shareholder. … Epstein v. Wash.

Petition for Naturalization of Healy

183 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, N.D. California · May 6, 1960

In the absence of the signed statement, the registrant was no longer classifiable in IV-C (Local Board Memorandum No. 39, as amended). … Thus, this case is comparable to the Petition of Moser (Moser v. U. S., 341 U.S. 41 , 71 S.Ct. 553 , 95 L.Ed. 729 ) where a claim to exemption was held not to bar naturalization.

In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities Litigation

281 F.R.D. 405 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 20, 2012

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992). … New England Carpenters points out, however, that in Aronson v.

Neuhaus v. Torrey

310 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 1970

Breen v. Kahl, D.C., 296 F.Supp. 702, 709 ; Griffin v. Tatum, D.C., 300 F.Supp. 60, 62, 63 ; Olff v. *194 East Side Union High School District, D.C., 305 F.Supp. 557 . … Akin v. Board of Education of Riverside, etc. District, 262 Cal.App.2d 161, 167 , 68 Cal.Rptr. 557 ; Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 5 Cir., 392 F.2d 697, 702 .

Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Mercoza

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 18, 2025

Dytch 23 v. Bermudez, No. 17-cv-02714, 2018 WL 2230945, at *3 (N.D. Cal. … Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v.

In re Gee Nay Wai

135 F. Supp. 641 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 3, 1955

See Mar Gong v. Brownell, 9 Cir., 1954, 209 F.2d 448 ; Gung You v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 1929, 34 F.2d 848 ; Louie Poy Hok v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 1931, 48 F.2d 753 ; Young Len Gee v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 1931, 53 F.2d 448 ; Nagle v. … Jin Suey, 9 Cir., 1930, 41 F.2d 522 ; Go Lun v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 1927, 22 F.2d 246 . Other courts have faced the same problem. Johnson v. Damon, 1 Cir., 1926, 16 F.2d 65 .

Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California, et al. v. CEM Builders, Inc., et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 26, 2018

See Trustees of the 2 Screen Actors Guild–Producers Pension & Health Plans v. NYCA, Inc., 572 F.3d 771, 774-76 (9th 3 Cir. 2009); Board of Trustees v. RBS Washington Blvd. LLC, 2010 WL 145097, at *2 (N.D. … See Brown Decl., ¶ 20; 21 Stafford Decl., ¶ 29; Stafford Supp. Decl., ¶ 5.

Larkin v. United States

14 F. Cas. 1150 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 15, 1857

The claim in this ease is founded on the alleged grant to Castañeda, Arenas and Dias, the merits of which were considered in the case of Redman v. U. S. … The board of commissioners were unanimously of opinion that this circular conferred no power to make the sale at bar, and in that opinion I concur. LARKIN (UNITED STATES v.). See Oases Nos. 15,561-15,564.

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 2, 2021

See Board of County Commissioners of County of La Plata v. Brown Group Retail, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1115 (D. … In Mangini v.

League of Academic Women v. Regents of the University of California

343 F. Supp. 636 · District Court, N.D. California · May 26, 1972

For other decisions which support this viewpoint, see Lee v. Board of Regents of State Colleges, 441 F.2d 1257, 1260 (7 Cir. 1971); Butts v. … Hurwitt v.

Miller v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

260 F. Supp. 2d 931 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 28, 2003

In addition, in one of the cases, Miller et al v. … See Haldimann v.

Ward v. Stanislaus

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 16, 2024

Holley v. California Dep’t Of Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th 10 Cir. 2010). California’s Franchise Tax Board is an agency of the state of California. Cal. … Yagman v.

The Arctic Bird

109 F. 167 · District Court, N.D. California · May 27, 1901

In Strohn v. … Gaines v. Insurance Co., 28 Ohio St. 418 ; Park v. Preston, 108 N. Y. 434 , 15 N. E. 705 ; King v. Woodbridge, 34 Vt. 565 .

Ragan v. Madigan

194 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, N.D. California · May 1, 1961

Arizona State Board of Public Welfare v. … In Peretz v.

In re Henry Ulfelder Clothing Co.

98 F. 409 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 12, 1899

Wood v. Jackson, 8 Wend. 45 ; Doty v. Brown, 4 N. Y. 71 ; Lewis v. Pier Co., 125 N. Y. 341 , 26 N. E. 301 ; Wilson’s Ex’rs v. Deen, 121 U. S. 525 , 7 Sup. Ct. 1004, 30 L. Ed. 980 ; Packet Co. v. … Ed. 550 ; Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 606 , 24 L. Ed. 214 ; Driscoll v. Damp, 16 Wis. 106 .

Gregoire

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 27, 2026

No. 40 10 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID 11 TRANSIT DISTRICT, … While the Court does not prohibit or oppose the use of AI in legal advocacy, if AI tools 22 are utilized, parties have a duty to “independently verif[y] the accuracy of AI-generated content.” 23 See Oneto v.

Almirol v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

550 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 30, 1982

Moghanian v. United States Dept. of Justice, 577 F.2d 141 , 142 (9th Cir.1978). … Therefore, although the Board chose to follow the “clear probability” standard, it made clear the fact that objective evidence is also required in the use' of well-founded fear as a standard. The case of Kashani v.