Case law

San Francisco Apartment Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco

142 F. Supp. 3d 910 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 5, 2015

and to pay a fee to the Rent Board; 6) to require the Rent Board to create a publically available, searchable database of buyout agreements; 7) to require the Rent Board to provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors … Co. v.

Parker v. Lester

98 F. Supp. 300 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 1, 1951

district, and a board of five Coast Guard officials to act as the national appeal board. … Thus, in the case of Yakus v.

English & Sons, Inc. v. Straw Hat Restaurants, Inc.

176 F. Supp. 3d 904 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 1, 2016

Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2000); see Devereaux v. … See ProtectMarriage.com v.

Goodwin v. Laird

317 F. Supp. 863 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 19, 1970

See Milton v. Commanding General, et al., 316 F.Supp. 405 (N.D.Cal., 6/4/70); Cf ., United States v. Bornemann, 424 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir. 1970); United States v. … The Board’s reasons cannot properly be read as a finding of insincerity. In order to sustain a denial on the grounds of insincerity there must be a definite finding of disbelief of the petitioner. See United States v.

Abdulhadi v. Board of Trustees of the California State University

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

AND (2) SETTING LIMITED DEADLINES 8 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA Re: Dkt. No. 74 STATE UNIVERSITY, ET. … Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 28 (9th Cir. 2016).

United States v. Canepa

319 F. Supp. 1319 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 25, 1970

reports and floor debates on the 1967 Act show that a primary purpose of the amendments was to eliminate this local option and to provide clear, uniform standards for undergraduate deferments. 3 Breen v. … Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S. 111, 116 , 67 S.Ct. 1129 , 91 *1322 L.Ed. 1375, 1382 (1947); Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U.S. 542, 552-553 , 64 S.Ct. 737 , 88 L.Ed. 917, 923 (1944).

Thibodeaux v. Teamsters Local 853

263 F. Supp. 3d 772 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 26, 2017

See Parrino v. … Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos Polymen, Inc., 681 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2012); Conmar Corp. v.

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Division of Labor Law Enforcement of Department of Industrial Relations of California

203 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 28, 1962

The following cases are dispositive: Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. Railway Co., 339 U.S. 239 , 70 S.Ct. 577 , 94 L.Ed. 795 ; Texas & N. O. R. v. Brotherhood of Railway & S. S. … Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 , 50 S.Ct. 427 , 74 L.Ed. 1034 ; Transcontinental, etc., Air v. Koppal, 345 U.S. 653 , 73 S.Ct. 906 , 97 L.Ed. 1325 ; General Electric Co. v. Callahan, supra.

United States v. Goetz

786 F. Supp. 835 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 5, 1992

In Brown v. … Browning, 761 F.Supp. 681, 684 (C.D.Cal.1991) and United States v. Freeman, 922 F.2d 1393, 1397 (9th Cir.1991).

Helicopters for Agric. v. Cnty. of Napa

384 F. Supp. 3d 1035 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 18, 2019

Defendants Napa County and its Board of Supervisors move to dismiss all claims. ANALYSIS 1. VOID FOR VAGUENESS . … It means the pilot and all other personnel on board are needed to safely complete the flight and to complete the agricultural operation.

Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

803 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 31, 2011

Brown, 617 F.3d at 1181 (emphasis added); see also Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. … Ctr. v. Brown, 617 F.3d 1176, 1182 (9th Cir.2010) (“Brown ”). . “In 1990, EPA promulgated 'Phase I' regulations for the storm water discharges specified in § 402(p).” Id.

Goddefroy v. The Live Yankee

10 F. Cas. 515 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 18, 1857

In Brown v. Cornwall, 1 Root, CO, it was held that stock on deck jettisoned for the common safety is entitled to an average loss. … , and, if on board, will be so carried.

D.V. v. City of Sunnyvale

65 F. Supp. 3d 782 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 14, 2014

, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board.... ” Cal. … .”); Brown v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 11-CV-02162 LB, 2014 WL 1364931 , at *17 (N.D.Cal.

United States v. Kaul

305 F. Supp. 829 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 28, 1969

These two local boards, together with Local Board No. 23, make v. the three local boards in Sacramento County. … United States v. Beltran, 306 F.Supp. 385 , Or.No. 42330, N.D.Cal., 7/11/69; United States v. DeMarco, Or.No. 42377, N.D.Cal. 7/30/69.

Zero Motorcycles, Inc. v. Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.

802 F. Supp. 2d 1078 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 18, 2011

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge. … In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2846 , 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011) (“Goodyear”), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that its decision in Perkins v. Benguet Consol.

In re Bank

290 F. Supp. 120 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 1, 1968

Briggs v. United States, 397 F.2d 370 (9th Cir., June 26, 1968); United States ex rel. Goldstein v. McNamara, 270 F.Supp. 892, 895 (E.D.Pa.1967). The Court in deRozario v. … Goldstein v. McNamara, supra. Petitioner contends that Dr.

California Public Interest Research Group v. Shell Oil Co.

840 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 22, 1993

See Student PIRG of New Jersey v. … See Western States Petroleum Association ("WSPA") v. The California Regional Quality Control Board, Civ. No. 121078. 4 .

Associated General Contractors of California v. San Francisco Unified School District

431 F. Supp. 854 · District Court, N.D. California · May 17, 1977

Pa. v. … a promotional list, was constitutional; Germann v.

Walsh v. Babcock

31 F. 418 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 17, 1887

Rep. 493; Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 220 ; Coughtry v. Globe, 56 N. Y. 124 ; Mulchey v. Methodist Soc., 125 Mass. 487 . … Bennett v. Truebody, 66 *420 Cal. 509 , 6 Pac. Rep. 329 ; The Victoria, 13 Fed. Rep. 43; Dwyer v. National S.S. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 493.

Reynolds v. Allstate Ins.

855 F. Supp. 2d 989 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 19, 2012

The letter also stated, “As you know, Allstate has selected Michael Brown of the Law Offices of Michael F. Brown to defend you in this case. … Brown that could affect his representation of you. If you would like to select separate counsel at your own expense to associate with Mr. Brown in the defense of this action, however, you are welcome to do so.”