Case law

Bancroft—Whitney Co. v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.

61 F. 213 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 17, 1894

Jur. 185; Griswold v. The Nevada, 2 Sawy. 145 , Fed. Gas. No. 5,839; Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mason, 91 , Fed. Cas. No. 17,679; Brown v. Jones, *216 2 Gall. 480 , Fed. Cas. No. 2,017. … This was likewise held by Judge Brown in The Crapeshot, 22 Fed. 123 . Judge Brown says: “By the law of both countries [America and England] negligence in a common carrier is a tort as well as a breach of contract.”

Yturbide v. United States

30 F. Cas. 889 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 15, 1857

S. v. Marvin, 3 How. [44 U. … [Poultney v. City of La Fayette] 12 Pet. [37 U. S.] 472; [Saltmarsh v. Tuthill] 12 How. [53 U. S.] 389; [Bank of Alabama v. Dalton] 9 How. [50 U. S.] 522. .

United States v. Sanchez

27 F. Cas. 946 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 5, 1861

S. v. White, 23 How. [64 U. S.] 255; Mezes v. Greer [24 How. (65 U. S.) 268.] … Kendricks v. Castro, 23 How. [64 U. S.] 442.

Grigorescu v. Board of Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District

District Court, N.D. California · May 24, 2024

She made comments at a District Board of Trustees (“Board”) meeting and submitted a letter 21 to the Board expressing her appreciation of the gardens and nature. … See Skelly v. State Personnel Board, 15 Cal.3d 194, 194 (1975). It ensures 25 that the employee has due process rights. Ms. Grigorescu and Mr. Whitlock were present.

Sarmiento v. Sealy, Inc.

367 F. Supp. 3d 1131 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 14, 2019

Becerra , 898 F.3d 879 , 887 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Brown , 554 U.S. 60 , 65, 128 S.Ct. 2408 , 171 L.Ed.2d 264 (2008) ). … Brown , 554 U.S. at 65 , 128 S.Ct. 2408 (quoting Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles , 475 U.S. 608 , 613, 106 S.Ct. 1395 , 89 L.Ed.2d 616 (1986) ); see also San Diego Bldg.

United States v. Dellas

355 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2005

At all times relevant to this motion, the parcels identified in the search warrant were owned by Edward Brown, a resident of Buffalo, New York. Oct. 14, 2004 Tr. at 10-17 (Testimony of Edward Brown). … by the cooperative, Oct. 14, 2004 Tr. at 24-25 (Brown Testimony).

Bennett v. Colvin

202 F. Supp. 3d 1119 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 16, 2016

Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir.2015). (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In assessing Ms. … Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 492 (quoting Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir.2014)). In regards to Dr.

United States v. Lamb

150 F. Supp. 310 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1957

Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 222 F.2d 293 , 296 and cases there cited. … United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 376 , 74 S.Ct. 113 , 98 L.Ed. 92 ; citing Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 431 , 52 S.Ct. 417 , 76 L.Ed. 861 ; and Brown v. United States, supra; and cf. Rule 7(c), Fed.

McKenzie v. Kirkpatrick

141 F. Supp. 49 · District Court, N.D. California · May 14, 1956

Helen, v. Wyman, D.C. 139 F.Supp. 545 ; Levin v. Gillespie, D.C.1954, 121 F.Supp. 726 ; and Marshall v. Wyman, D.C., 132 F.Supp. 169 . … Further,.he can make to the Board of Correction of and Navy Records, under Title 5 U.S.C.A. § 191a, “We think Congress intended that the Board’s full and ‘final’ review should not be subjected to a further.review, or series

Southern Pac. Co. v. Corbett

20 F. Supp. 940 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 10, 1937

Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., 301 U.S. 1 , 57 S.Ct. 615 , 81 L.Ed. 893 , 108 A.L.R. 1352 , and Edwards v. U. S. (C.C.A.9) 91 F.(2d) 767 , decided July 22, 1937. … Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U.S. 352, 399 , 33 S.Ct. 729 , 57 L.Ed. 1511 , 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, Ann.Cas.1916A, 18; National Labor Relations Board v. Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co.

Rury T. McKay

84 F. 360 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 9, 1897

On the 24th day of April, 1897, the libelant agreed to serve as a seaman on board the schooner Occidental, under shipping articles signed by him, and containing the following provisions: “It is agreed between the master and … Griffith, 71 Fed. 317 , and that of Heinrici v.

In re Ezeta

62 F. 964 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 4, 1894

Cas. 525; State v. Smith (1829) 1 Bailey, 283 ; State v. Brewster (1835) 7 Vt. 118 ; Dow’s Case, (1851) 18 Pa. St. 37; State v. Ross (1866) 21 Iowa, 467 ; The Richmond v. U. S., 9 Cranch, 102 . … Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700 -717, 8 Sup. Ct. 1204.

S. S. Seatrain Louisiana v. California Stevedore & Ballast Co.

424 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 1976

In Seas Shipping Co. v. … The employees being covered by the Act, their estates received compensation from their employer, the Board of Trade.

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Chi-yi

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 22, 2022

Co. 8 v. Brown-Kingston, 2019 WL 8137717, at *2 (E.D. Cal. … Bank v.

O'Brien v. The Umattilla

29 F. 252 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 1, 1886

O’Brien proposed to his companions to endeavor to get on board of her. … character of salvors; and I cannot but view the establishment of such a doctrine as mischievous to the interests of commerce, inconsistent with natural equity, and hostile to the growth of sound morals and probity. ” In Hobart v.

Quadra v. SUPERIOR CT. OF CITY & CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO

403 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 1975

In Fay v. … Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 474 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 416 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953).

MacKay v. Rafferty

321 F. Supp. 1177 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 24, 1970

be certified as a teacher in the public schools of the State of California unless he has subscribed to a “loyalty oath”, the terms of which are set forth below. 1 The oath is attacked on the grounds discussed in Baggett v. … The oath or affirmation shall be subscribed before any person authorized to administer oaths or before any member of the governing board of a school district or of any county board of education and filed with the State Board

Baranco v. Ford Motor Co.

294 F. Supp. 3d 950 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 12, 2018

As to Plaintiffs Brown (New Hampshire) and Kubber (New York), both states require a plaintiff to demonstrate both procedural and substantive unconscionability. See Chen v. … Abraham v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pacific Press Publishing Ass'n

482 F. Supp. 1291 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 28, 1979

See also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 219-220 , 92 S.Ct. 1526 , 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603-604 , 81 S.Ct. 1144 , 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961); Reynolds v. … Roemer v. Maryland Public Works Board, supra, 426 U.S. at 755 , 96 S.Ct. at 2349 (plurality opinion).

McFarlane v. DeYoung

311 F. Supp. 321 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 20, 1970

In this situation, the scope and extent of petitioner’s obligation is to be determined against the standard recently enunciated by the Ninth Circuit Court in Beaty v. Kenan, 420 F.2d 55 , (9th Cir. 1969). … Local Board No. 20 requested petitioner’s appearance as a result of information brought to the attention of the Board by a third party.