Case law

Ex parte Lee Bock Fook

40 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 16, 1941

Thereupon the Board of Special Inquiry rendered its decision to the effect that the Board likewise had not changed its mind, and accordingly again ordered the applicant excluded. … Accordingly, upon the authority of Carmichael v. Wong Choon Ock, 119 F.2d 173 , and Quan Toon Jung v.

Aldasoro v. Kennerson

922 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 4, 1995

In 1979 the two Boards separated. In 1983 the El Centro School District Board was expanded from three seats to the current five Board seats. 7. … Thornburg, 478 U.S. at 48 , 106 S.Ct. at 2765 ; Overton v. City *368 of Austin, 871 F.2d 529, 538 (5th Cir.1989); Williams v. State Board of Elections, 718 F.Supp. 1324, 1328 (N.D.Ill.1989); Valladolid v.

Partnoy v. Shelley

277 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 21, 2003

Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). … Rossi v. Brown, 9 Cal.4th 688 , 700 n. 7, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363 , 889 P.2d 557 (1995). 6 .

Board of Trustees of the San Diego Electrical Pension Trust v. My Electrician Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 15, 2021

See generally Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. … See Van Gerwen 10 v. Guarantee Mut.

City of Vista v. Gen. Reinsurance Corp.

295 F. Supp. 3d 1119 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 5, 2018

However, in Hertz Corp. v. … In the mandatory settlement conference scheduled in the underlying workers compensation action before the Workers Compensation Appeals Board ("the *1127 Board"), GRC filed a Petition to Intervene in order to "protect against

Bonica v. Olesen

126 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 22, 1954

Congress has imposed on them responsibility for assuring that the Board keeps within reasonable grounds. … The Board’s, findings are entitled to respect ; but they must nonetheless be set aside when the record before a Court of Appeals clearly precludes the Board’s decision from being justified by a fair estimate of the worth

Keele v. Union Pac. R. Co.

78 F. Supp. 678 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 20, 1948

Heart of America Lumber Company v. Belove, D. C., W.D.Mo., 28 F.Supp. 619 ; North-land Greyhound Lines v. Amalgamated Association, etc., D.C.D.Minn., 4th Division, 66 F.Supp. 431 ; Fox v. … In Walling v.

Federal Home Loan Bank v. Long Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

122 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 29, 1954

C., 14 F.R.D. 273 , (Dec. 1, 1949); Home Loan Bank Board v. Mallonee (April 2, 1952), 9 Cir., 196 F.2d 336 ; Fahey v. O’Melveny & Myers (November 6, 1952), 9 Cir., 200 F.2d 420 ; Mallonee v. … I find nothing in Home Loan Bank Board v. Mallonee, 9 Cir., 196 F.2d 336 , Fahey v. O’Melveny & Myers, 9 Cir., 200 F.2d 420 , or Fahey v. Calverley, 9 Cir., 208 F.2d 197 , which would indicate to the contrary.

Board of Trustees of the San Diego Electrical Pension Trust v. My Electrician Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 26, 2021

Hexcel Corp. v. … Welch v. Metro.

Paramount Plastering, Inc. v. Local No. 2 of the Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n

195 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 5, 1961

. § 152(6); National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 1939, 306 U.S. 601, 604-605 , 59 S.Ct. 668 , 83 L.Ed. 1014 ; National Labor Relations Board v. … In National Labor Relations Board v.

Kaseberg v. Conaco, LLC

360 F. Supp. 3d 1026 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 15, 2018

As for the September 2015 Application, by letter dated July 17, 2017, the Review Board of the Office (the "Board") found on de novo review that the Tom Brady joke "exhibit[ed] copyrightable authorship and thus may be registered … Co. v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins.

Nguon

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 20, 2026

Heck v. … All claims against 8 the parole board Defendants based on allegations for which they are entitled to quasi- 9 judicial immunity are dismissed without leave to amend. See Sharma v.

Avratin v. Bermudez

420 F. Supp. 2d 1121 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 5, 2006

Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514 , *1123 1518 (9th Cir.1989), overruled on other grounds by Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.1996), (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. … The launcher misfired, however, and Officer Brown activated an alarm to alert other staff of the incident.

Pacific Resources Associates LLC, et al. v. Suzy Cleaners, et al.

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

Grimes 13 v. … Brown v. Celgene Corp., Case No. CV 10-3165 GHK (SS), 2016 WL 27 6542729, at *7 (C.D. Cal.

United States v. Southern Pac. R.

11 F.2d 546 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 3, 1926

Exploration Co. et al. v. U. S., 38 S. Ct. 571 , 247 U. S. 435 , 62 L. Ed. 1200 ; U. S. v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co., 41 S. Ct. 335 , 255 U. S. 323 , 65 L. Ed. 660 ; U. S. v. Bellingham Bay Imp. Co. et al., 281 F. 522 (C. … S. v. Bellingham Bay Imp.

J. Allen Ramey, M.D., Inc. v. Pacific Foundation for Medical Care

999 F. Supp. 1355 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 6, 1998

British Airways Board v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 951 (9th Cir.1978). … Id., 429 U.S. at 488 (quoting Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 320 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962)).

Roberts v. Barbosa

227 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, S.D. California · May 19, 1964

[Weller v. Dickson, supra]. … The Board of Supervisors were acting in their official capacity in denying the claim, and they, therefore, have immunity.

Hertel

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 13, 2026

McCown v. … Counsel has done so through 23 declarations from Timothy Brown—managing partner of The Brown Law Firm P.C. and 24 Co-Lead Counsel in the consolidated shareholder derivative action before this Court, ECF 25 No. 28-2—

Petricich v. Devlahovich

107 F. Supp. 871 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 27, 1952

So we are confronted with the fact that, whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, Johnson v. … See, Beadle v. Spencer, 1936, 298 U.S. 124, 128 , 56 S.Ct. 712 , 80 L.Ed. 1082 ; The Arizona v. Anelich, 1936, 298 U.S. 110, 118-119 , 56 S.Ct. 707 , 80 L.Ed. 1075 ; Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v.

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

49 F. Supp. 3d 710 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2014

Finally, the Court may make across-the-board percentage cuts in the number of hours claimed as “a practical means of trimming the fat from a fee application.” Gates v. … The Court may apply an across-the-board “haircut” to “trim the fat” where, as here, the requested award is excessive. Moreno v.