Case law

Wells v. Swope

121 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 4, 1954

Wells v. United States, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 334 . … In Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 512 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 449 , 97 L.Ed. 469 , Mr.

In Re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation

554 F. Supp. 2d 1003 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 24, 2008

In March 2000, Star disclosed that its Board of Directors changed its Interchange Fees----”). … Leaseways, Inc. v.

Ruelas v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

67 F. Supp. 3d 1137 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2014

Rodriguez v. … See, e.g., Arias v.

Bryson v. U.S. Parole Commission

776 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 27, 1991

Board of Parole for a hearing pursuant to D.C. guidelines. In Cosgrove v. … Board of Parole. Cosgrove v. Thornburgh, 703 F.Supp. 995, 1002 (D.D.C.1988).

United States v. MacKby

221 F. Supp. 2d 1106 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 3, 2002

Pharaon v. Board of Governors of the Fed. … Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v.

Ellis v. NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY, ALAMEDA, CAL.

404 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 3, 1975

Title VII gives a plaintiff thirty days to file in district court after notice of final agency or final appeal board action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). … Jackson v. Klassen, et al., C-73-1068 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 19, 1974) (Williams, J); Brown v . Froelke, et at, C-73-0251 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 25, 1974) (Wollenberg, J); Thompson v. Department of Justice, 372 F.Supp. 762 (N.D.

Wirtz v. Local Union No. 1622, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners

285 F. Supp. 455 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 7, 1968

any answer from the Executive Board by September 12, 1965. … [hereinafter referred to as Wirtz v.

Young v. Schultz

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 6, 2023

Brown, 75 F.3d 506, 510 (9th Cir. 1996)). 10 Schultz argues that Plaintiffs have failed to plead the second, third, fourth, and fifth elements of 11 the claim. ECF No. 20-1. … a Board member, and the value to the members of the 12 HOA of having Young serve on the Board.”

Kenny v. Supercuts, Inc.

252 F.R.D. 641 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 2, 2008

In White v. … The district court in Brown v. Federal Express Corp., 249 F.R.D. 580 (C.D.Cal.2008) agreed with the White court’s reasoning.

T.O.C., Inc. v. United Artists Theatre Circuit

631 F. Supp. 832 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 7, 1986

Buchanan v. Delaware Valley News, 571 F.Supp. 868, 871 (E.D.Pa.1983); see also, Franchise Tax Board v. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 , 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2846-47 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). … Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, 29 Cal.2d 34, 42 , 172 P.2d 867 (1946). Accordingly, “[t]he federal and California antitrust laws ... [have] identical objectives [and] are harmonious with each other.” Partee v.

Lowell O. West Lumber Sales v. United States

160 F. Supp. 429 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 1958

A decision of the Board is final only as to questions of fact arising under the contract. See United States v. Wunderlich, 1951, 342 U.S. 98 , 72 S.Ct. 154 , 96 L.Ed. 113 . … Since characterization of the basic agreement itself is a question of law, the Board’s holding that this is a “requirements” type contract is not binding upon the court. See United States v.

Shaffer v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH

779 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 1, 2011

Arbitration is a matter of contract, Chiron Corp. v. … Neaman v. Kaiser Found.

Vatuone v. United States

94 F. Supp. 592 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 20, 1950

Vatuone, has brought an action against the United States for the death of her husband, who was injured while engaged as a rigger on board the USAT General D. E. … These facts place the instant case within the language of Mandel v.

Hardison v. Dunbar

256 F. Supp. 412 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 22, 1966

Co. v. Cohen, 1 Cir., 264 F.2d 190 , and Tobriner v. Chefer, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 246 , 335 F.2d 281 , with United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220 , 80 S.Ct. 282 , 4 L.Ed.2d 259 , and Fallen v. … In Brown v. Heinze, D.C., 248 F. Supp. 293 , this Court noted the problems posed by the proliferation of petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed in Federal District Courts.

Santa Clara Valley Water District v. Olin Corp.

655 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 19, 2009

M. *1053 The Regional Water Quality Control Board approved the proposal. … Under Davis v.

In Re Oracle Securities Litigation

852 F. Supp. 1437 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 14, 1994

By resolution, Oracle’s Board of Directors (“Board”) authorized the SLC to exercise all power and authority of the Board with regard to the derivative litigation. … Reiser v.

Fletcher v. Mapes

62 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 17, 1945

In Meyer v. State Land Settlement Board, 104 Cal.App. 577, 585 , 286 P. 743, 746 , the Court cited People v. Honey Lake Valley Irr. … Nevada National Bank v. Board of Supervisors, 5 Cal.App. 638, 647 , 91 P. 122 . This was recognized by the Circuit Court in Herring v. Modesto Irr.

Ducombs v. Trans World Airlines

937 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 22, 1996

E.g., Hodges v. Delta Airlines, 44 F.3d 334 (5th Cir.1995); Bieneman v. City of Chicago, 864 F.2d 463 (7th Cir.1988); Moore v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 897 F.Supp. 313 (E.D.Tex.1995); Margolis v. … In American Airlines v.

Charter Communications, Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz

203 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 11, 2001

Group W Cable, Inc. v. City of Santa Cruz, 669 F.Supp. 954, 971 (N.D.Cal.1987). … In support of this argument, the County cites Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v.

United States v. Enright

25 F. Cas. 1014 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 1857

In Arguello v. U. S., 18 How. [59 U. S.] 543, the supreme court, after alluding to the “informes” usually required, says: “By the fourth section, the governor being thus informed may ‘accede or not’ to the petition. … After referring to the testimony, the board in their opinion say: “From a careful examination of all the proofs in the case, we think the preponderance of proof is in favor of the claimant, and must be regarded as establishing