Case law

Hunter Douglas Corp. v. Lando Products, Inc.

102 F. Supp. 635 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 1, 1952

The Board of Patent Appeals sustained the rejection of claims covering the apparatus but allowed two claims covering the process. … A patent is presumptively valid but, as stated by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Jacuzzi Bros., Inc., v.

Altman v. Stevens Fashion Fabrics

441 F. Supp. 1318 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 5, 1977

President and Board of Trustees of Santa Clara College, Civ. No. C-75-0124-AJZ, at 11 n. 1 (N.D.Cal. … In Curtis v.

Nesbitt v. United States

445 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 1, 1978

Union Credit Company (“Union Credit”), the Franchise Tax Board of the State of California (“Franchise Tax Board”), and Safeco Title Insurance Company (“Safeco”). … The Franchise Tax Board holds two tax liens against Brann, one of which was recorded on May 27, 1976, in the amount of $5,489.36, the other recorded on June 7, 1976, in the amount of $704.77. 3 On May 26, 1976, Brann died

Allphin v. Peter K. Fitness, LLC

78 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 2015

Chakalis v. Elevator Solutions, Inc., 205 Cal.App.4th 1557, 1571 , 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 (2012) (citing Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52 (2006)); see also Wilson v. … (in which the Board found Dr. Ochoa “not credible” and “assesse[d] no weight to Dr. Ochoa’s testimony”); see also Aponte v. Weitz Co., 2002 WL 34453158 (S.D.Fla. Apr. 1, 2002) (where a court found that Dr.

Breneman

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 4, 2025

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 BOARD … Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 3 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008); Camacho v.

In Re Schneider

9 B.R. 488 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 1981

See Elliott v. Ostman, supra; Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, 190 U.S. 294 , 23 S.Ct. 751 , 47 L.Ed. 1061 (1903); In re Cummings, 413 F.2d 1281 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied sub nom., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. … In fact, Schoenfeld has been cited approvingly by the highest court of the State of California in Lee v. Brown, 18 Cal.3d 110, 113 , 132 Cal.Rptr. 649, 650 , 553 P.2d 1121, 1122 (1976) and Caito v. United Cal.

Redd-Oyedele v. Santa Clara County Office of Education

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 15, 2024

See Maney v. Brown, 91 F.4th 1296, 1302 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting 22 Stilwell v. … There, the plaintiff, an elected 23 Commissioner on the San Francisco School Board was “removed from her titular role as Vice- 24 President and from membership on all committees by a School Board resolution.”

Xanadu Maritime Trust v. Meyer

21 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 13, 1998

Under Chandris, Inc. v. … The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Graham, 86 F.3d *1107 861 (9th Cir.1996), does not help claimant.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc.

615 F. Supp. 371 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 1985

In Bhd. of Teamsters, Local No. 70 v. … See also Northwest Administrators v.

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation

233 F.R.D. 542 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 5, 2005

U.S. v. … Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Kansas City, Inc., 1993 WL 210012 (D.Kan.1993); Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292 (E.D.Pa.1980).

Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

74 F.R.D. 24 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 24, 1977

In the Fifth Circuit this policy has been implemented by “certification” of so-called across-the-board classes. See, e. g. Rodriguez v. East Texas Motor Freight, above. … See, also, Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 433 F.2d 421 (8th Cir. 1970); Brown v. Gaston County Dyeing Machine Co., 457 F.2d 1377 (4th Cir. 1972).

Henrikson v. Udall

229 F. Supp. 510 · District Court, N.D. California · May 22, 1964

(Foster v. Seaton, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 253 , 271 F.2d 836, 838 ; Adams v. United States, (9th Cir.) 318 F.2d 861, 873 .) … As held in such cases as Sisto v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 31 , 179 F.2d 47, 51 , and N.L.R.B. v. Stocker Mfg.

John Doe 1, et al. v. University of San Francisco, et al.

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 7, 2026

The Board members 15 invoke Jacoby v. Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System, 709 F. Supp. 3d 16 1087, 1091 (E.D. … See Marten v.

O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

150 F. Supp. 3d 1095 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 10, 2015

The vast majority of courts have not followed the Board’s rulings. The Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits have specifically considered the Board’s ruling in In re D.R. … Horton, Inc. and declined to follow its reasoning, noting that the Board’s interpretation is contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v.

Jarose v. County of Humboldt

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 2, 2020

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 18 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Johnson v. … United States v. 26 DJO Glob., Inc., 678 F.

The Queen

184 F. 537 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 10, 1910

Cooley v. Board of Wardens, etc., 12 How. 299 , 13 L. Ed. 996 . … Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332 , 25 Sup. Ct. 52, 49 L. Ed. 224 ; Sprague v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 95 , 6 Sup. Ct. 988, 30 L. Ed. 115 ; The Carrie L. Tyler, 106 Fed. 422 , 45 C. C. A. 374 , 54 L. R.

Cesario v. Vistagen Therapeutics Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 2025

Singh1 by May 14, 2025, and 24 Defendants Vistagen Therapeutics Inc. and Withum Smith & Brown PC by June 9, 2025. … Adler, and Tim Lugo; and (3) added Vistagen 1 Flores v. Doe Agent 1, No. 24-CV-01189-JES-MSB, 2025 WL 96290, at *1 (S.D. Cal.

Western Homes, Inc. v. United States

129 F. Supp. 792 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 2, 1955

This specific issue has been considered by our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in two cases, Rollingwood Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1951, 190 F.2d 263 ; McGah v. … In McGah v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 210 F.2d 769 , a different situation existed than in the instant case.

Knowles v. Butz

358 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 1973

See Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 , 85 S.Ct. 792 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). … Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134 , 56 S.Ct. 397, 400 , 80 L.Ed. 528 (1936). The statutory definition of “household,” 7 U.S.C. § 2012 (e), as modified by Moreno v.

(PC) Lovell v. East Oakland Police Department

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 18, 2023

Clegg v. … See Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); 9 Monell, 436 U.S. at 691.