Case law

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.

Fidelity Financial Corp. v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance

359 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, N.D. California · May 31, 1973

Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 , 79 S.Ct. 180 , 3 L.Ed.2d 210 (1958). … Corp. v. Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp., 469 F.2d 47 , 54 (5th Cir. 1972), citing Boire v.

A. Dariano & Son, Inc. v. District Council of Painters No. 33

681 F. Supp. 649 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 1987

Scott of Region 32 of the National Labor Relations Board. 9. … Dariano & Son, Inc., to show a conflict between the decision of the National Labor Relations Board and the arbitration award, which is the standard set forth in the controlling case of Carpenters Local 14-78 v.

Roling v. E TRADE SECURITIES, LLC

756 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 22, 2010

*1188 the application of the fee schedule only to former Brown Company customers absorbed by E*Trade. … The limiting statement appears directly below the first sub-heading, which reads “Brown Co. Special Pricing.” Id. Immediately after the Brown Co.

The Belvedere

100 F. 498 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 1, 1900

See, also, Allen v. Hitch, 2 Curt. 147 , Fed. Cas. No. 224; The Minerva, 1 Hagg. Adm. 347. … Burdett v. Williams (D. C.) 27 Fed. 116.

Silva v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

638 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 16, 1985

Co. v. … See, e.g., Brotherhood of Railway & Airline Clerks v. Burlington Northern, 555 F.Supp. 1061, 1063 (N.D.Ill.1983); United Transportation Union v.

The Alice Blanchard

92 F. 519 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 17, 1899

The articles provided that he was to present himself on board of the steamer, for service, on June 29, 1898, but at what hour was not stated. … Goodrich v. The Domingo, 1 Sawy. 182 , Fed. Cas. No. 5,543; Jansen v. The Theodor Heinrich, Crabbe, 226 , Fed. Cas. No. 7,215; The Disco, 2 Sawy. 474 , Fed. Cas. No. 3,922.

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.

Phillips

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2025

The amended 26 complaint again names the Franchise Tax Board as a defendant, despite the Court’s indication in 27 the prior order that sovereign immunity was a bar to that. Dkt. … See Nordin v. Scott, No. 3:21-cv-04717-JD, 2021 2 |} WL 4710697, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

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.

Johnson v. Hui

752 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 21, 1990

(See Starrels v. … The two eases cited in Greenspun and reviewed in Lewis v. Sporck support this conclusion. Heit v.

Roza v. Smith

65 F. 592 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 1895

Fotheringham v. Express Co., 36 Fed. 252 . … Field, Dam. § 615; Boyle v. Case, supra; Fotheringham v. Express Co., supra; Railroad Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 103 , 107, 13 Sup. Ct. 261. In my judgment, the action of the respondent deserves punishment.

The Nettie Sundberg

100 F. 886 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 30, 1900

Board of Harbor Com’rs of Port of Eureka v. Excelsior Redwood Co., 88 Cal. 491 , 26 Pac. 375 . … See, also, Green v. The Helen (C. C.) 1 Fed. 916 .

Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc.

722 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 1989

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Fidelity Financial Corp. v. … In Pinter v.

MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco

259 F. Supp. 2d 1004 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 25, 2003

Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven, 244 F.Supp.2d 108, 117 (E.D.N.Y.2003). … USCOC of Virginia RSA#3, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Supervisors, 245 F.Supp.2d 817, 827 (W.D.Va.2003).

In re Cerati

160 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 26, 1957

Petitioner filed a request for immediate induction with his local board, and after examination, was advised by the board that he was acceptable for military service. … His local board thereafter exempted him from military service as an alien.

Friends of Frederick Seig Grove 94 v. Sonoma County Water Agency

124 F. Supp. 2d 1161 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 12, 2000

Colleges v. … There is no question that the provision under which the Regional Board fined the defendants is comparable to the CWA. In Citizens for a Better Environment v.

Phillips

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 7, 2025

(quoting 8 Schneider v. Cal. … See Franchise 12 Tax Bd. of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230, 249 (2019); O’Neal v. Allison, No. 22-cv-07367-JD, 5 13 || 2023 WL 1071645, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

Carlin v. Wong

552 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 17, 2008

See Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126-27 (9th Cir.2006). … Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir.2007); Sass, 461 F.3d at 1127-28 ; see also Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 , 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987); Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr.

Pioneer Rubber Mills v. United States

10 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 30, 1935

Kroyer v. U. S. (Ct. Cl.) 55 F.(2d) 495 . … Brampton Woollen Co. v. Field (C. C. A. 1) 56 F.(2d) 23 ; James v. U. S. (Ct. Cl.) 38 F.(2d) 140 .