Case law

Anderson

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 17, 2025

See generally Spurbeck v. … Mohanty v. BigBand Networks, Inc., No. C 07-5101 SBA, 20 2008 WL 426250, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2008) (citing EEOC v.

Stanz

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 29, 2026

(Id. at 1-2, ¶ 1.) 11 In August 2018, Plaintiff, Wolf, and Brown entered into an agreement, whereby 12 Plaintiff reduced his ownership interest in JGH from 49.5% to 25%, resigned from JGH’s 13 Board of Directors … Cruz v.

Stanz

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 29, 2026

Whittaker Corp. v. 24 Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. … See Falstaff 28 Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Shillitani 1 v.

Stanz

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 23, 2026

Camacho v. … .”); 25 McCown v.

Imperial Irrigation District v. California Independent System Operator Corp.

146 F. Supp. 3d 1217 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 24, 2015

In August 2011, in reliance on CAISO’s approval,' IID’s Board of Directors approved the Path 42' upgrades within IID’s territory. … See Brown v. MCI WorldCom Network Servs., Inc., 277 F.3d 1166 , 1170 (9th Cir.2002) (“[N]o one may bring a judicial proceeding to enforce any rate other than the rate established by the filed tariff.

NTD Architects v. Baker

950 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 10, 2013

a member of the Board of Principles and shareholder of NTD. … Elsbach v.

Munoz v. County of Imperial

510 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 26, 1981

IB Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.411[6], at 1551 (2d ed. 1980); Brown-Crummer Investment Co. v. Paulter, 70 F.2d 184, 186 (10th Cir. 1934). … IB Moore’s Federal Practice 2d ¶ 0.411[1], page 1253; Brown-Crummer Investment Co. v. Paulter, 70 F.2d 184 (10th Cir. 1934).

Conditioned Air & Refrigeration Co. v. Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Labor-Management Relations Trust

159 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 23, 1956

United States v. Ryan, 350 U.S. 299 , 76 S.Ct. 400 , 100 L.Ed. 335 . … F. of L. v. Essex Transportation Company, 3 Cir., 216 F.2d 410 ; Rice-Stix Dry Goods Company v. St. Louis Labor Health Institute, D.C.E. No. 22 LRRM 2528; People v.

Farrow v. United States

373 F. Supp. 113 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 15, 1974

See Young v. United States, 485 F.2d 292 (8th Cir. 1973); Brown v. United States, 483 F.2d 116 (4th Cir. 1973) [hereinafter cited as Brown]. These decisions are based on principles of exhaustion of state remedies. … Brown, supra, at 118 .

Ex parte Beales

252 F. 177 · District Court, S.D. California · May 25, 1918

In his questionnaire he waived all claim to exemption and was placed by the local board in class 1A. … The regulations further provide (note to above rule): “No alien (not an alien enemy) who has not declared his intention to become a citizen, of the United States shall be placed in any class oilier than class V unless such

Ex parte Delaney

72 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 21, 1947

Stapf v. … Volpe v.

American Fishermen's Tuna Boat Ass'n v. Rogan

51 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 13, 1943

We think that Trinidad v. Sagrada Orden, 263 U.S. 578 , 44 S.Ct. 204 , 68 L.Ed. 458 ; Crooks v. Kansas City, etc., Ass’n, 8 Cir., 37 F.2d 83 ; Santee Club v. White, 1 Cir., 87 F.2d 5 ; and Retailers Credit Ass’n v. … “These findings of fact the Board was free to make; they were warranted by the evidence and are binding upon us. Palmer v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 63, 70 , 58 S.Ct. 67 , 82 L.Ed. 50 ; Helvering v.

Mallonee v. Fahey

117 F. Supp. 259 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 30, 1953

V. … V.

Trust No. 5833, Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles v. Welch

50 F.2d 613 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 21, 1931

In Hecht v. Malley, 265 U. S. 157 , 44 S. Ct. 462, 467 , 68 L. Ed. 949 , the Supreme Court said: “The word 'association' appears to be used in the Act in its ordinary meaning.” And in Little Four Oil & Gas Co. v. … I am of the opinion that the project under consideration here is analogous to those discussed in the cases of Hecht v. Malley, supra, and Little Four Oil & Gas Co. v. Lewellyn, supra.

Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co. v. Corbett

23 F. Supp. 186 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 13, 1938

In a more recent decision, Henneford v. … [Citing cases.]” *191 In Bowman v.

United States v. Rushlow

385 F. Supp. 795 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 9, 1974

Lombardino v. Heyd, 318 F.Supp. 648, 650 (E.D.La.1970); see, United States v. Hallman, 365 F.2d 289, 291 (3rd Cir. 1966); Brown v. Kearney, 355 F.2d 199, 200 (5th Cir. 1966). … See, United States v. Brown, 488 F.2d 94, 95 (5th Cir. 1973).

Birch v. McColgan

39 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 9, 1941

Riley, members of the State Board of Equalization, and John F. … Ashwander v.

In Re Quaker Room

90 F. Supp. 758 · District Court, S.D. California · May 24, 1950

See State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, 1935, 5 Cal.App.2d 374 , 42 P.2d 1076, 1077 ; Hevren v. Reed, 1899, 126 Cal. 219 , 58 P. 536 . … Board of Trade v. Johnson, supra, 264 U.S. 1, 10 , 44 S.Ct. 232 , 68 L.Ed. 553 ; Fisher v. Cushman, supra, 1 Cir., 103 F. 860, 865 .

United States v. Saathoff

708 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 6, 2010

E.g., United States v. Waymer, 55 F.3d 564 (11th Cir.1995) (school board member failed to disclose that he received $200,000 in kickbacks on school contracts with particular vendor); see also United States v. … V.; see also Apprendi v.

Wong v. Hoy

173 F. Supp. 855 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 1959

United States v. Citizen’s Loan & Trust Co., 316 U.S. 209, 214 , 62 S.Ct. 1026 , 86 L.Ed. 1387 ; United States v. Madigan, 300 U.S. 500, 505 , 57 S.Ct. 566 , 81 L.Ed. 767 ; United States v. … Jackson, 280 U.S. 183, 193 ; United States v. Short, 9 Cir., 240 F.2d 292 .