Case law

Sundstrom v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

816 F. Supp. 587 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 6, 1993

The Boyle defense clearly bars the design defect claim. … Under controlling Ninth Circuit authority and Boyle , that more limited claim is also barred when defendants have established government contractor immunity.

Cleveland Macaroni Co. v. State Board of Health

256 F. 376 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 3, 1919

These principles are thus aptly and clearly expressed in the Weigle Case: “The Food and Drugs Act indicates its intent to respect the recognized lino of distinction between domestic and interstate commerce too clearly to … The fact that a food or drug might be condemned by Congress, if it passed from state to state, does not carry an immunity oí foods or drugs, making the same passage, that it does not condemn.

United States v. Bell

158 F. Supp. 3d 906 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 2016

Count Two clearly charges defendants under section 111(b). See Dkt. No. 14 ¶5. Accordingly, Count Two may serve as a predicate crime of violence for the section 924(c) charge. … The section 924(c)(3) residual clause may not be used to establish that section 2112 robbery is a crime of violence.

Colombo v. Palo Alto Unified School District

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 27, 2025

Defendants argue that even if they violated Plaintiff’s due process 14 rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly 15 established law. Mot. 12–13; Reply 11–13. … Plaintiff counters that “no reasonable school 16 administrator would disagree” that Defendants violated his clearly established rights and, 17 alternatively, that qualified immunity cannot be resolved on a motion to

Hilton v. Hongisto (In Re Hongisto)

293 B.R. 45 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 2003

Here, Hongisto clearly denied “part of the matter” and qualified the remainder. See id. … were clearly erroneous.

Casey v. Ohio Medical Products

877 F. Supp. 1380 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 28, 1995

The study clearly does not described such an epidemiological analysis. … Harrison to establish specific causation. Dr.

Winding Creek Solar LLC v. Peevey

293 F. Supp. 3d 980 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 6, 2017

No. 130 ¶ 10. 2 The California legislature established the program in 2002, and expanded it in 2006, 2011 and 2015. Id. … The text of 18 C.F.R. § 292.304 (d)(2) clearly states that, "at the option of the qualifying facility exercised prior to the beginning of the term," the QF may sell energy or capacity at a rate determined by either "(i) [

In Re Benny

44 B.R. 581 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 29, 1984

to select the qualified individual on the Executive or the Judiciary. … The constitutional history and decisional law further establish that the Appointments Clause and the doctrine of separation of powers which it embodies are honored so long as selection of the qualified officeholder is exercised

Missud v. Nevada

861 F. Supp. 2d 1044 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 22, 2012

Judicial Immunity — Judicial Defendants Judge Ryu recommends dismissing Plaintiffs complaint against the Judicial Defendants on the basis of judicial immunity. … For the reasons stated above, Missud’s conduct qualifies for the Court’s discretionary imposition of sanctions, including a pre-filing order.

Lopez-Reyes v. Kenosian & Miele, LLP

525 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 6, 2007

“Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … The court found that the two statutes were irreconcilable in that case because the RFDCPA “would effectively immunize conduct that the Act prohibits....

Gould v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

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

To determine whether an 17 officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct 18 violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time … .; see, e.g., Pearson, 555 17 U.S. at 243-45 (concluding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct 18 was not clearly established as unconstitutional as the “consent-once-removed” doctrine

Brandes v. United States

569 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 4, 1983

In loaning the car, the government had the right to establish any restrictions on the use of the vehicle. … [citations omitted] but quite clearly the statutory language was drafted to have an expansive reach, ...

In re Naturalization of Garces

192 F. Supp. 439 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 1, 1961

But, it is unnecessary to consider either issue since it clearly appears from the undisputed record that Garces has not met the residence requirements of Section 324. … But there is no competent evidence of military service during World War II of such character as would qualify him for naturalization pursuant to Section 324 of the National- • ity Act of 1940.

Samuel v. California Department of Health Services

570 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 31, 1983

Section 431.-51(b), however, does not establish a guarantee that a recipient may choose from all qualified providers of medical assistance without regard to the willingness of the health care provider to accept a Medi-Cal … It merely establishes the right to obtain Medicaid services from any qualified health care provider who undertakes to provide services under the Medicaid program. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23); see also O’Bannon v.

United States v. Layton

549 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 11, 1982

But, as Jones’ ramblings on the Last Hour Tape clearly indicate, he was in a highly agitated state during the Ryan visit, and during the Ryan departure in particular. … It is unclear whether such good faith efforts must include granting a declarant immunity so that his or her testimony will be available at trial — a step the government has declined to take in connection with Carter’s statement

Strong v. United States

57 F. Supp. 2d 908 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 22, 1999

(the “Magistrates Act”), establishes the scope of a magistrate judge’s authority. … The district court regarded the sanctions as a pretrial matter and reviewed the ruling under the clearly erroneous standard provided in § 636(b)(1)(A). See id.

Aikins v. St. Helena Hospital

843 F. Supp. 1329 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 2, 1994

Lies regularly employs at least five persons or that he receives the requisite amount of qualifying financial assistance from the state; thus, their allegations are insufficient to establish that Dr. … CAD clearly has no standing to pursue a damages remedy in this case; therefore, the Court considers only its standing to seek injunctive relief. 3 .

Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda

859 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 14, 2012

An ADA violation is established where a plaintiff proves that: “(1) he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, … This Court later granted summary judgment to the County on the basis of statutory immunity under California Government Code §§ 845.2 and 844.6. See Docket No. 204, at 13. .

Eisenberg v. Permanente Medical Group

855 F. Supp. 2d 1002 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2012

Barton is entitled to immunity for his decisions made in overseeing the hearing process. See Wasyl, Inc. v. First Boston Corp., 813 F.2d 1579, 1582 (9th Cir.1987). … A scheduling decision would fall within this scope, thereby immunizing Mr. Barton from Title VII liability.

Friedman v. Jenkins

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 19, 2024

Jenkins May Be Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 4 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil 5 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate any clearly … is entitled to qualified immunity.