Case law

Surgeon v. Alaska Packers Ass'n

26 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 21, 1939

Alaska Packers Association v. … Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 1922, 257 U.S. 469, 478 , 42 S.Ct. 157 , 66 L.Ed. 321 , 25 A.L.R. 1008 ; Millers’ Indemnity Underwriters v. Braud, 1926, 270 U.S. 59, 64 , 46 S.Ct. 194 , 70 L.Ed. 470 ; Fuentes v.

The Board of Trustees, Laborers Health and Welfare Fund for Northern California v. Garrison Demolition and Engineering, Inc.

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

Green Pet Shop Enters., LLC v. 1 Cal. Apr. 13, 2022) (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 2 (2011)). … (JLG Enters., Inc. v.

In Re County of Monterey Initiative Matter

427 F. Supp. 2d 958 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2006

Notably, in reaching this conclusion, the court cited a United States Supreme Court case of Allen v. … First, in reaching its conclusion, the Padilla court expressly distinguished two cases from other cir cuits — Montero v. Meyer, 861 F.2d 603 (10th Cir.1988), and Delgado v.

Van Pool v. City and County of San Francisco

752 F. Supp. 915 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 10, 1990

See, e.g., Handley v. … Brown v. Puget Sound Elec. App. & Train Trust, 732 F.2d 726 , 729 (9th Cir.1984) (quoting Oubichon v.

Application of Atchley

169 F. Supp. 313 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 27, 1958

As to those allegations considered by the State Courts, petitioner has met the jurisdictional requirements of this Court ( 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 ; Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 ; and Darr v. … It may be noted here that were the question properly presented to this Court, it would adopt that finding of the referee (Brown v. Allen, supra).

Stelly v. Martinez Detention Facility

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

West v. … Board of Cty. Comm'rs. of Bryan Cty. v. 5 Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997).

In Re Oracle Securities Litigation

829 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 9, 1993

In essence, then, Oracle’s board terminated the derivative litigation in accordance with procedures similar to those discussed by the Delaware Supreme Court in Zapata Corp. v. … Garlen v.

Gabriel v. Clark

287 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 28, 1968

Zirpoli, a Judge of this Court, in the case of Petersen v. … It necessarily ascribes to plaintiff the essential elements and ingredients of criminal conduct, by the very act of his seeking an orderly review of the draft board classification.

McQuillion v. Rushen

639 F. Supp. 420 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 19, 1986

See People v. Marcias, 137 Cal.App.3d 465 , 472-75, 187 Cal.Rptr. 100 (1982). … See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir.1982).

Officers for Justice v. Civil S. Com'n, C. & C. San Francisco

371 F. Supp. 1328 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 26, 1973

Chance v. Board of Examiners, 458 F.2d 1167 , 1174 (2nd Cir. 1972). … Chance v. Board of Examiners, 458 F.2d 1167 , 1174 (2nd Cir. 1972).

In Re Related Asbestos Cases

566 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 1983

Moe v. … The record shows that, after the acquisition of CMI by Advance in 1971, all the members of the board of directors of CMI were also board members of Advance. ...

A.J. California Mini Bus, Inc. v. Airport Commission

148 F. Supp. 3d 904 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 3, 2015

Blue-zone SuperShuttle vans must depart within 15 minutes after the first passenger boards; if SuperShuttle fills its ten spaces and has passengers boarding regularly, it could have as many as 40 vans per hour cycle through … In the red zone, vans must depart within 20 minutes after the first passenger boards; if the two companies operating there (each with four spaces) fill their spaces .and have passengers boarding regularly, each could have

Metpath, Inc. v. Myers

462 F. Supp. 1104 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 16, 1978

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens’ Consumer Council, Inc., supra, 425 U.S. at 762 , 96 S.Ct. 1817 ; Bates v. … Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., supra, 425 U.S. at 761-62 , 96 S.Ct. 1817 .

Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

608 F. Supp. 562 · District Court, N.D. California · May 10, 1985

Logging Co. v. … Potato Bar Ass’n v.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Byrd

729 F. Supp. 1265 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 19, 1990

Brown of Belli, Belli, Brown, Monzione, Fabbro & Zakaria. Appearing for *1266 defendant L. Arthur Byrd was John Purcell of the Law Offices of Irving Pfeffer. … Exch. v. Abbott, 204 Cal.App.3d 1012 , 251 Cal.Rptr. 620 (1988); see also State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v.

Moore v. Thomas

653 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 27, 2009

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge. … the California State Personnel Board.

Foster v. City of Oakland

649 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 11, 2009

See Payne v. … Brown v. Lucky Stores, 246 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted) (citing Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, U.S. Airways v.

Grassetti v. Weinberger

408 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 1976

While this request was denied, in the exercise of the Board’s discretion over the scope and content of its proceedings, plaintiff was informed that he could submit a written statement which would be circulated to the Board … See, e. g., Apter v. Richardson, 510 F.2d 351 (7th Cir. 1975); Kletschka v. Driver, 411 F.2d 436 (2d Cir. 1969); Cappadora v.

San Francisco Baykeeper v. WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT

791 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. California · May 23, 2011

It is well established that records, reports, and other documents on file with administrative agencies — such as the State Water Resources Control Board — are judicially noticeable. Lee v. … State Board.

United States v. San Francisco Electrical Contractors Ass'n

57 F. Supp. 57 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 5, 1944

The Supreme Court upheld these views in Parker v. Brown, supra. By “processing” I really mean “construction.” In the strictly “processing” cases, there is no “building” of a system. … International Fur Workers Union, 1938, 2 Cir., 100 F.2d 541 ; United States v. Univis Lens Co., 1943, 316 U.S. 241 , 62 S.Ct. 1088 , 86 L.Ed. 1408 ; Parker v. Brown, supra.