Case law

Railware, Inc. v. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 10, 2026

Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 20 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). … Ctr. for Auto Safety v.

Railware, Inc. v. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 23, 2026

Defendant. 12 13 Defendant Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board d/b/a Caltrain … Ashcroft 2 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 3 (2007)).

United States v. Juares

26 F. Cas. 666 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 9, 1862

Brown v. The United States was written, and which is undeniably fraudulent. The character of the signatures, and the whole appearance of the document, justifies the conclusion that it is not genuine. … Vallejo before the claim was presented to the board.

Mil-Spec Monkey, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

74 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 24, 2014

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 . IV. DISCUSSION A. Ghbsts Is An Expressive Work Entitled to First Amendment Protection. As explained in Brown v. … See Brown v.

Steerman v. United States Parole Commission

593 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 1984

“[T]he function of the board is not limited to searching] for indictments and convictions, but it must determine whether a prisoner is a fit subject for release.” McArthur v. … See, e.g., *766 Reynolds v. McCall, 701 F.2d 810, 813 (9th Cir.1983); Hatton v. Keohane, 693 F.2d 88, 90 (9th Cir.1982).

Rheingans v. Clark

314 F. Supp. 1398 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 18, 1968

Miller v. United States, 388 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1967); Stain v. United States, 235 F.2d 339 (9th Cir. 1956). … See Stain v. United States, 235 F.2d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1956). The plaintiff’s selective service file includes no basis in fact for the board’s refusal to reopen plaintiff’s classification.

Ex parte Lee Fong Fook

74 F. Supp. 68 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 23, 1948

United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U.S. 161 , 24 S.Ct. 621 , 48 L.Ed. 917 ; United States ex rel. Loucas v. Com’r of Immigration, D.C., 49 F.2d 473 . … See Bledsoe v. Johnston, D.C., 58 E.Supp.129.

Nevada-California Electric Corporation v. Corbett

22 F. Supp. 951 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 1, 1938

In Westinghouse Electric Co. v. … Board of Fish and Game Com’rs v. Riley, 194 Cal. 37, 39 , 227 P. 775 ; Daughterty v.

Stuart v. Radioshack Corp.

259 F.R.D. 200 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 28, 2009

Colby v. … See Brown v. State Pers.

United States v. Piner

452 F. Supp. 1335 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 1978

That the detention and boarding of the Delphene by the Coast Guard constituted an intrusion sufficient to invoke Fourth Amendment principles is beyond question. See, Terry v. … The unexpected boarding of their vessel under those circumstances is certain to create anxiety in the occupants, aggravating the degree of intrusion. See, United States v.

In Re Openwave Systems Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

503 F. Supp. 2d 1341 · District Court, N.D. California · May 17, 2007

Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir.1986)); see also Dreiling v. American Exp. … Beam v. Stewart, 845 A.2d 1040, 1056 (Del.2004); see also Rales v.

Governing Council of Pinoleville Indian Community v. Mendocino County

684 F. Supp. 1042 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1988

Segundo v. City of Rancho Mirage, 813 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir.1987); see also Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. … E.g., Duncan v. Andrus, 517 F.Supp. 1, 6 (N.D.Cal.1977), connected case, Duncan v.

Joel v. Rosseter

15 F. Supp. 914 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 14, 1936

It does not appear from the complaint that complainants have applied for redress of any grievance either to said Board or to their own association. Such application we think is essential. Fish v. … Huddell, 60 App.D.C. 263 , 51 F.(2d) 319 ; Greenwood v. Building Trades Council of Sacramento, 71 Cal.App. 159 , 233 P. 823 ; 5 C.J. 1364; 63 C.J. 702.

United States v. Hearst

412 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 23, 1976

The controlling case on the question of a defendant’s residual rights under the Fifth Amendment once he or she elects to take the witness stand is Brown v. … See, e. g., Johnson v. United States, 318 U.S. 189 , 63 S.Ct. 549 , 87 L.Ed. 704 (1943); United States v. Lyon, 397 F.2d 505 (7th Cir. 1966); United States v. Pate, 357 F.2d 911 (7th Cir. 1966); DeRose v.

Pueblo Trading Co. v. Baxter Creek Irr. Dist.

61 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 11, 1945

In Hayes v. … In Buss v.

Hahn v. Madigan

194 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, N.D. California · May 1, 1961

The Court cannot revise an order of that Board.” The Fifth Circuit also is of the opinion that any complaint a prisoner has against the Parole Board must be determined in Washington, D. C. Howell v. … As stated in Doherty v.

Rollins v. Dignity Health

59 F. Supp. 3d 965 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 22, 2014

Bank v. … Conclusory assertions that the Corporate Board “Members controlled CHW,” McTernan Decl. ¶ 4, do not create a genuine dispute. See FTC v.

Wirum v. Goel (In re Signet Solar, Inc.)

532 B.R. 750 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 9, 2015

Li v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. … See Tr. at 23-24, 26 (bankruptcy court stating that the rule “protects a Board as a Board acting as a Board” and not “an individual member of a Board from deceiving his own company”). But even with this assumption, Mr.

Damascus v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

933 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 1996

The Supreme Court’s 1986 “trilogy” of Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), Anderson v. … See Pierce v. Gardner, 388 F.2d 846, 847-48 (7th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 885 , 89 S.Ct. 197 , 21 L.Ed.2d 162 (1968); Bertram v. Secretary of HEW, 385 F.Supp. 755, 757 (E.D.Wis.1974); Waldron v.

In Re Finisar Corp. Derivative Litigation

542 F. Supp. 2d 980 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 11, 2008

Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del.1984). … See Fed.R.Evid. 201; see also Plevy v.