Case law

Patriot Scientific Corp. v. Korodi

504 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, S.D. California · May 25, 2007

In Grimes v. … Thus, the alleged oral agreement was held to be “unenforceable for lack of both board approval and a written agreement.” Id. at 266 . Similarly, in Scarpinato v.

Merced Dredging Co. v. Merced County

67 F. Supp. 598 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 29, 1946

Parker v. Brown, 1943, 317 U.S. 341 355 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 ; Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Superior Court, 1936, 5 Cal.2d 550 , 55 P.2d 495 ; cf. Wickard v. … Co. v. Board, supra, 254 U.S. at pages 410, 411, 41 S.Ct. at page 171.

Herman Ex Rel. General Public v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

266 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 27, 2003

See Grandon v. … See Grandon, 147 F.3d at 190 ; see also Banca Cremi, S.A. v. Alex. Brown & Sons, Inc., 132 F.3d 1017, 1033 (4th Cir. 1997). 14 .

Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation v. Nylander

14 F. Supp. 201 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 3, 1936

What the Board can do may harm complainant, if his views are correct as to the validity of the Act. In Moore v. … Co. v. United States Labor Board, 261 U.S. 72 , 43 S.Ct. 278 , 67 L.Ed. 536 . In Boise Artesian Water Company v.

Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.

161 F. Supp. 295 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 15, 1958

Conductors of America v. Pitney, 326 U.S. 561 , 566, 66 S.Ct. 322 , 90 L.Ed. 318 . The jurisdiction of the Board to adjust grievances and disputes of the type covered by the Act is exclusive, (Slocum v. … Co., 339 U.S. 239, 244 , 70 S.Ct. 577 , 94 L.Ed. 795 ) and the making of an award by the Board and the failure to comply with an order of the Board are essential to give the Court jurisdiction under the Act. Thomas v.

Northrop Corporation v. Madden

30 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 18, 1937

See National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & McLaughlin S. Corp., 1937, 301 U.S. 1 , 57 S.Ct. 615 , 81 L.Ed. 893 , 108 A.L.R. 1352 . … See, United States v. Corrick, 1936, 298 U.S. 435 , 56 S.Ct. 829 , 80 L.Ed. 1263 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 1937, 301 U.S. 1, 47 , 57 S.Ct. 615 , 81 L.Ed. 893 , 108 A.L.R. 1352 .

Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.

198 F. Supp. 402 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 27, 1961

B. v. McGahey, 5 Cir., 233 F.2d 406 , 413: Board cannot “second-guess” management or give it gentle guidance by over-the-shoulder supervision; N. L. R. B. v. … The Special Adjustment Board No. 18 also cited Thomas v. New York, Chicago & St. L. R. R., 6 Cir., 185 F.2d 614 , 617 and Hunter v. Atchison T. & S. F. Ry.

Hale v. Villalpando

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 6, 2023

v. … Brown, 807 F.2d at 1412.

Ortega v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique

258 F. Supp. 430 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 14, 1966

Wilson v. Northwest Marine Iron Works, 212 F.2d 510 (C.A.9); Brown v. … Westfall Larson & Co. v. Allman-Hubble Tug Boat Co., 73 F.2d 200 (9th Cir.); Wilson v. Northwest Marine Iron Works, supra; Brown v.

Koch v. Zuieback

194 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, S.D. California · May 24, 1961

He further requested a hearing before the Local Board. On June 7, 1955, plaintiff had a hearing before the Local Board. … As required by the Local Board, plaintiff made a summary of this hearing and filed it with the Board, and the Board also filed a summary transcript. Plaintiff also submitted other written evidence.

Alexander H. Kerr & Co. v. United States

97 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 25, 1951

Hammond, Inc. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 545 . … Brown Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 B.T.A. 112 . See also Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.

Salazar v. Avis Budget Group, Inc.

251 F.R.D. 529 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 2, 2008

Brown v. Fed. Express Corp., 249 F.R.D. 580, 585-86 (C.D.Cal.2008) (citing Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir.2001)). … Id. at 1104 , 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 , 155 P.3d 284 (emphasis added); see also Brown, 249 F.R.D. at 585 (explaining Murphy supports view that meal period use is not mandatory). 5 The White, Kenny, and Brown decisions are persuasive

United States v. Sutter

127 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 16, 1954

Reporting to the local board preparatory to departing for the performance of the work ordered, 14 is the “brink”, Estep v. United States, supra, Williams v. … The duty of the registrant was both to report to the board and to proceed to perform the work ordered. Jeffries v.

Ricotta v. State of California

4 F. Supp. 2d 961 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 15, 1998

Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982). … Board of the County Comm’rs of Bryan County, Oklahoma v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 , 117 S.Ct. 1382, 1388 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997).

Ex Parte Stewart

47 F. Supp. 415 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 6, 1942

(See my opinion in United States v. … Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U.S. 673 , 32 S.Ct. 359, 363 , 56 L.Ed. 606 .

Kintera, Inc. v. Convio, Inc.

219 F.R.D. 503 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 14, 2003

See Krenning v. Hunter Health Clinic, 166 F.R.D. 33 (D.Kan.1996); See also Brown v. City of Detroit, 259 F.Supp.2d 611 (E.D.Mich.2003). … In Brown , a police officer brought a civil rights action against the city. The plaintiff sought discovery of a review board report, portions of which had been intentionally leaked to the media.

Kent v. Howard

801 F. Supp. 329 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 24, 1992

Title VII claims In support of the argument that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff, the individual defendants cite Brown v. … The court agreed with the District Court for the District of Columbia, which concluded that an interpretation that Brown v.

Union Oil Co. v. Bryan

52 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 14, 1943

Justice Brown, said: “It was held by a majority of this court in Cary v. … In the same case of Arnson v.

George v. Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District Board Of Governors

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 15, 2024

The defendant community colleges, their governing boards, and 6 the individual defendants in their official capacities all enjoy such immunity. See Johnson 7 v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. … But because it is conceivable that 20 plaintiffs could assert claims against the board members in their individual capacities, the 21 Court grants leave to amend the damages claims. See Hafer v.

Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

75 F. Supp. 188 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 29, 1947

Co. v. … (San Francisco Lodge, etc., v. Forrestal, D.C., 58 F.Supp. 466 ; Central Mexico, etc., v. Munch, 2 Cir., 116 F.2d 85 ; National War Labor Board v. Montgomery, etc., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 200 , 144 F.2d 528 .)