Case law

Eonline Global, Inc. v. Google LLC

387 F. Supp. 3d 980 · District Court, N.D. California · May 15, 2019

Brown v. Grimes , 192 Cal. App. 4th 265 , 277, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 893 (2011) ; see also Hitz Entm't Corp. v. Mosley , 2018 WL 2722512 , at *4 (C.D. Cal. … Hitz Entm't , 2018 WL 2722512 , at *4 (quoting Brown , 192 Cal. App. 4th at 278 ) (citing Insurance Underwriters Clearing House, Inc. v. Natomas Co. , 184 Cal. App. 3d 1520 , 1526-1527, 228 Cal.Rptr. 449 (1986) ).

Ex parte Mock Kee Song

19 F. Supp. 743 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 26, 1937

S. v. … S. v.

Jewel Companies, Inc. v. Pay Less Drug Stores Northwest, Inc.

510 F. Supp. 1006 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 3, 1981

See Piper v. … Bledsoe v. Watson, 30 Cal.App.3d 105, 108 , 106 Cal.Rptr. 197 (1973).

Rush v. Curry

745 F. Supp. 2d 1014 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 27, 2010

After the matter was submitted, on April 22, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Hayward v. … See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803-04 , 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991); Barker v.

United States v. White

28 F. Cas. 573 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 1861

S. v. … S. v. Fossatt [supra], is limited to the United States and the claimant.

Grimes v. United States

11 F. Cas. 49 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 15, 1855

The claim in this case was rejected by the board of commissioners. … The objection, therefore, of nonperformance of conditions must, under the principles laid down in Fremont v. U. S. [17 How. (58 U. S.) 542] be overruled.

SWINGLESS GOLF CLUB CORPORATION v. Taylor

679 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 24, 2009

Stewart v. Ragland, 934 F.2d 1033, 1043 (9th Cir.1991). … For example, counterclaimants state that DePorche and Taylor were members *1069 of the Swingless Golf Board of Directors, and that the Board assigned counterclaim-ants’ property and then voted to dissolve Swingless Golf (

Bong Youn Choy v. Barber

162 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, N.D. California · May 26, 1958

Carmichael, 1947, 332 U.S. 388 , 68 S.Ct. 10 , 92 L.Ed. 17 ; Carmichael v. Delaney, 9 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 239 , or Di Pasquale v. Karnuth, 2 Cir., 1947, 158 F.2d 878 . … This was not an abuse of the Board’s discretion. See Jay v. Boyd, 1956, 351 U.S. 345 , 76 S.Ct. 319 , 100 L.Ed. 1242 . Plaintiffs’ prayer for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is hereby denied.

Summers v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

805 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 4, 2011

Similarly, in Gilstrap v. … See Catsouras v.

Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd.

460 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 27, 2006

See Plaine v. McCabe, 797 F.2d 713, 721 (9th Cir.1986) Kahn v. Lynden, 705 F.Supp. 1458, 1463-64 (W.D.Wash.1989). … They cite Chang v.

United States v. Knowles

26 F. Cas. 800 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 11, 1864

Reg. v. Pargeter, 3 Cox, Cr. Cas. 191. … Reg. v. Haines, 2 Car. & K. *802 368.

Dresselhaus v. Pugh

250 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 2, 1965

Defendants point out that plaintiff is free to present his case, following his discharge, before a review board ( 10 U.S.C., § 1553 ), and the Board for the Correction of Naval Records ( 10 U.S.C., § 1552 ). … Plaintiff also asserts that he is entitled to review of the discharge board’s recommendation by 5 U.S.C., § 1009 . The Court is not persuaded that this statute is applicable to the pleadings in this case. See Reed v.

Talavera v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 85

351 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 20, 1972

Simmons v. Avisco, Local 713, Textile Workers Union of America, 350 F.2d 1012, 1019 (4th Cir. 1965); McCraw v. United Ass’n of Journeymen & App. Plumbing, etc., 341 F.2d 705 , 710 (6th Cir. 1965); Vars v. … International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc. v. Braswell, 388 F.2d 193, 197-198 (5th Cir. 1968); Simmons v. Avisco, Local 713, Textile Workers Union of America, 350 F.2d 1012 (4th Cir. 1965); Paley v.

Board of Trustees, I.B.E.W. Local 332 Pension Plan Part A v. Delucchi Electric, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 1, 2020

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 BOARD … Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).

Engineers Club of San Francisco v. United States

609 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 12, 1985

In National Muffler Dealers Association v. … Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, and boards of trade.

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

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 2020

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 18-cv-01199-VC LELAND STANFORD … v. C.G.C. Music, Ltd., 804 F.2d 1454, 1461 (9th Cir. 1986). But as a general matter, an as-is clause does not release a seller of CERCLA liability. Wiegmann & Rose International Corp. v. NL Industries, 735 F.

Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Elite Waterproofing & Epoxy Flooring

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 2025

Plan v. … In Central States, Southeast and 24 Southwest Areas Pension Fund v.

IMDb.com, Inc. v. Becerra

257 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 27, 2017

.; Comments to 2015 Amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26; see also, e.g., Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 5:13-CV-04057-BLF, 2016 WL 146574 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016). … Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 799 , 131 S.Ct. 2729 , 180 L.Ed.2d 708 (2011).

Jefferson v. Heinze

201 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 26, 1962

People, 9 Cir., 284 F.2d 827 ; Muhlenbroich v. Heinze, 9 Cir., 281 F.2d 881 ; Anderson v. Heinze, 9 Cir., 258 F.2d 479 ; Graeber v. Schneckloth, 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 710 ; Reid v. Charney, 6 Cir., 235 F.2d 47 ; Collins v. … Heinze, 9 Cir., 217 F.2d 62 ; Dorsey v. Gill, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 9 , 148 F.2d 857 ; Hodge v. Huff, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 329 , 140 F.2d 686 ; Brown v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 370 ; and De Maris v.

Brandt v. Bay City Super Market

182 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 27, 1960

Under the existing law, this means that the complaint must set forth not only the state of incorporation of each corporate defendant, but also the state where such corporation has its principal place of business (see: Browne … v.