Case law

Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc.

799 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 30, 2011

In Graham v. … Co. v.

Mesa Verde Construction Co. v. Northern California District Council

598 F. Supp. 1092 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 13, 1984

Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 103 S.Ct. at 1753-54 ; NLRB v. … This rationale was recently extended to defenses which cannot be presented to the Board. Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Beck Engineering & Surveying Co., 746 F.2d 557, at 565 (9th Cir.1984).

Steshenko v. Gayrard

44 F. Supp. 3d 941 · District Court, N.D. California · May 20, 2014

Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir.1995) (citation omitted). The Board of Trustees is an arm of the state of California and thus the Board of Trustees may invoke the Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Courts have held that a board of trustees is not a state official acting in its official capacity and thus the Ex parte Young doctrine does not apply to claims against a board of trustees. See, e.g., Eubank v.

Adams County Board of County Commissioners v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 16, 2024

v. McKinsey and Co., Inc., Case No. 21- 13 Re: Member Case Dkt. … See Hebbe v.

Southwest Marine, Inc. ex rel. Universal Painting & Sandblasting Corp. v. United States

680 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 23, 1988

The parties agree that the Board can not exercise jurisdiction over a direct appeal filed after the ninety day period. See Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389 (Fed.Cir.1982). … See Glenn v.

Zavala v. Ridge

310 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 1, 2004

See Marcello v. … This Court is mindful of the Supreme Court decision in Demore v.

Terra Insurance v. New York Life Investment Management LLC

717 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, N.D. California · May 11, 2010

Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004). … Hahn v. Mirda, 147 Cal.App.4th, 740, 748 , 54 Cal. Rptr.3d 527 (2007).

In Re Data General Corp. Antitrust Litigation

490 F. Supp. 1089 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 7, 1980

Knutson v. … Siegel v.

Lewis v. Newman

788 F. Supp. 1086 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 2, 1991

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 , 78 S.Ct. 99, 102 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). … Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).

Holland America Insurance Company v. Rogers

313 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, N.D. California · May 28, 1970

Com., 220 Cal. 142, 146 , 29 P.2d 846 (1934); Temescal Rock Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 180 Cal. 637, 640-641 , 182 P. 447 (1919); Brown v. Brown, 274 A.C.A. 203, 211, 82 Cal.Rptr. 238 (1969); DeFreece v. … Brown v. Brown, supra, 274 A.C.A. at 211, 79 Cal.Rptr. 257 ; Brennfleck I, supra 265 Cal.App.2d at 745 , 71 Cal.Rptr. 525 .

San Francisco Lodge No. 68 of International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Forrestal

58 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 23, 1944

Central Mexico Light & Power Co. v. Munch, 2 Cir., 116 F.2d 85 ; National War Labor Board v. Montgomery Ward & Co., App.D.C., 144 F.2d 528, 531 . … National War Labor Board v. Montgomery Ward & Co., App.D.C., 144 F.2d 528 . Until then, at the earliest, no justiciable issue arises. It may never arise. No infraction may be committed, clearance may not be refused.

United States v. Lopez

322 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 10, 1971

The failure of the local board to comply with the regulations is not in itself basis for acquittal. The defendant must further show that such irregularity has resulted in substantial prejudice to him. Oshatz v. … This question has been answered by the Ninth Circuit in Ehlert v. United States, 422 F.2d 332 (1970).

Schulz v. Milne

849 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 22, 1994

In Blank v. … As the court in Lacher v.

State of California v. United States

46 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 20, 1942

And see Denning v. State, 123 Cal. 316, 321 , 55 P. 1000, 1001 , in which the California Supreme Court observed that the Board is authorized to conduct the “business of a wharfinger.” … As said in Pennsylvania v.

Kootenai Hospital District v. Bowen

650 F. Supp. 1513 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 9, 1987

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Jung v. FMC Corp., 755 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir.1985). … The district court ruled that the Review Board did have such jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo (a) grants the Board broad authority to review matters covered by a cost report. 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo (d) expressly grants the Board

United States v. Auger

337 F. Supp. 342 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 7, 1972

In United States v. … Although this court is mindful that it does not sit as a “super draft board,” substituting its judgment for the judgment of the local board, Witmer v.

United States ex rel. Tietz v. Abbott

68 F. Supp. 765 · District Court, N.D. California · May 3, 1946

In Estep v. United States, 66 S.Ct. 423, 427 , it was said, “The question of jurisdiction of the local board is reached only if there is no basis in fact for the classification which it gave the registrant.” Mr. … In United States v.

National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress

134 F. Supp. 3d 1199 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 23, 2015

Corp. v. … See United States v. Brown, 918 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir.1990).

Life Savers Concepts Ass'n of Cal. v. Wynar

387 F. Supp. 3d 989 · District Court, N.D. California · May 16, 2019

Wynar approached various Life Savers' members to tell them that Life Savers was a scam, that Brown had a long criminal record, and that Brown was stealing from them. Id. … See Davis v.

Montgomery Ward Employees' Ass'n v. Retail Clerks International Protective Ass'n

38 F. Supp. 321 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 25, 1941

filed a petition with the Board. … See American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 1941, 61 S.Ct. 568 , 85 L.Ed.-; Thornhill v. Alabama, 1940, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 ; Carlson v.