Case law

Pliscou v. Holtville Unified School District

411 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 13, 1976

United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 , 88 S.Ct. 1673 , 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968); Channing Club v. Board of Regents of Texas Tech. Univ., 317 F.Supp. 688, 691 (N.D.Tex. 1970). … Jacobs v. Board of Commissioners, supra, considered a provision similar to this regulation.

Torrance National Bank v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.

150 F. Supp. 638 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 28, 1957

In Torrance National Bank v. … As early as 1896, in People v.

California Packing Corp. v. Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California

165 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 7, 1958

Corp. v. Morlan, 9 Cir., 1926, 14 F.2d 920 ; Curtin v. Kowalsky, 1904, 145 Cal. 431, 434-435 , 78 P. 962 ; Cohn v. County Board of Supervisors, 1956, 135 Cal.App.2d 180, 184 , 286 P.2d 836 . … See, Hamilton, Brown Shoe Co. v. Sam B. Wolf Sons Co., 1930, 39 F.2d 272, 273-274 , 17 C.C. P.A., Patents, 921; R. M. Hollingshead Corp. v.

Apis v. United States

88 F. 931 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 21, 1898

Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363 ; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190 , 8 Sup. Ct. 456; and Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S. 238 , 9 Sup. Ct. 525. In Grisar v. … It may declare the action of the special board final; it may make it subject to appeal; it may require the appeal to go through one or more courts; and it may arrest the action of the board or courts at any stage.”

Rice v. Riddell

179 F. Supp. 576 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 31, 1959

His *577 compensation was received from various lumber companies on the basis of the number of board feet of trees which were felled and cut into logs. … Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Flowers, 1946, 326 U.S. 465 , 66 S.Ct. 250 , 90 L.Ed. 203 ; Donnelly v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 1959, 262 F.2d 411 . 2 . 9 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 292, 293 . 3 . Emmert v.

Macias v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

83 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 23, 1948

See my opinion in Caldwell v. Southern Pacific Co., D.C.Cal., 1947, 71 F.Supp. 955 . … At any rate, as I have no power to increase thé award as a condition for denying a new trial (see Dimick v.

Walker v. Home Owners' Loan Corp.

25 F. Supp. 589 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 4, 1938

The Federal Home Loan Bank Board was directed to create the Home Owners Loan Corporation “which shall be an instrumentality of the United States”, Sec. 1463 (a), Tit. 12 U.S.C.A., and constitutes the governing Board of the … All of its acts were directed and controlled by the President [in the instant case it is controlled by the Board appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate] of the United States through the several departments

McVicker v. United States

194 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 2, 1961

Plaintiffs have cited the case of Hollander v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 3 Cir., 219 F.2d 934 as controlling. … The husband sent the children to a boarding school, and attempted to deduct this cost as medical expenses.

Hunt v. Metcalf

47 F. 73 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 29, 1891

Stores for the hunting trip were thereupon put on board, and the respondents’ hunters and boat-pullers went on board, and libelant paid off his men. … Raymmd v. Tyson, 11 How. 58 .

Clarendon Group, Ltd. v. Smith Laboratories, Inc.

741 F. Supp. 1449 · District Court, S.D. California · May 23, 1990

The plaintiffs filed suit on September 11, 1989, seeking equitable relief, including a declaration that the “Rights Plan” violated Article V, paragraph 2, above and therefore was an invalid act by the Board. … See, e.g., Dynamics Corp. of America v. CTS Corp., 805 F.2d 705 (7th Cir.1986); West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Farley Inc., 711 F.Supp. 1088 (N.D.Ga.1988); CRTF Corp. v. Federated Dept.

Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 27, 2020

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S, 11 915, 919 (2011) (citation omitted). … Roberts, a board member of MI-HK, and Brown, misrepresenting 26 AIMS’ capabilities and when asked if they could be provided with technical information 27 or inspect AIMS, and (6) Dr.

Santa Monica Mountain Park Co. v. United States

20 F. Supp. 209 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 17, 1937

“Honesty of belief in the taxpayer is not conclusive, nor binding on the board. … We are not at liberty to substitute our opinion for that of the board on the facts shown on the record, even if we were disposed to do so." Avery v. Commissioner, supra, 22 F.(2d) 6 , at page 8, 55 A.L.R. 1277 .

Hooper v. Hartman

163 F. Supp. 437 · District Court, S.D. California · May 10, 1958

United States v. Stene, 7 USCMA 277 ; United States v. Kelley, 5 USCMA 259 . 5. … Closson v. United States ex rel. Armes, 7 App.D.C. 460 ; United States ex rel. Pasela v.

United States v. Chung Shee

71 F. 277 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 2, 1895

S. v. Loo Way, 68 Fed. 475 . … See, Wells, Res Adj. § 499; Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn. 544 ; Wierich v. De Zoya, 2 Gilman, 385 ; Kent v. Ricards, 3 Md. Ch. 396 ; Smith v. Lowry, 1 Johns. Ch. 320 ; De Louis v. Meek, 2 G. Greene, 55.

Nguon v. Madden

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 7, 2023

Gilman v. Brown, 110 F. Supp. 3d 989, 990 (E.D. Cal. 2014), rev’d and 14 remanded on other grounds, Gilman II, 814 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2016). … was not “increased” in any way by the Board’s decision); Robinson v. 28 Gonzalez, No.

Loc. Joint Exec. Bd., AFL-CIO v. Hotel Circle, Inc.

419 F. Supp. 778 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 11, 1976

(Siegel v. … Co. v.

Printers & Publishers Corp. v. Corbett

25 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 9, 1938

Southern Pacific Co. v. Corbett, supra, was decided on the principle laid down in many cases that the remedy at law must be remedy found in the courts of the United States. Risty v. Chicago, etc., Ry. … Since the adoption of the amendment referred to Southern Pacific Co. v.

Los Angeles Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Los Angeles

241 F. 912 · District Court, S.D. California · May 11, 1917

Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561 , 26 Sup. Ct. 341, 50 L. Ed. 596 , 4 Ann. Cas. 1175; New Orleans Gas Co. v. Drainage Commissioners, 197 U. S. 453 , 25 Sup. Ct. 471, 49 L. Ed. 831 ; Union Bridge Co. v. … That said board of public works, or the board, commission or officer of said' city having in charge the construction and establishment of said municipal electrical system, shall have power to move or relocate any pole, anchor

(HC)Uhuru v. The People of the State of California

District Court, S.D. California · May 9, 2022

Brown, 563 U.S. 3 at 545. … Ground Four 23 In ground four, Uhuru makes reference to the MDO law and Brown v.

Virachack v. University Ford

259 F. Supp. 2d 1089 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 30, 2003

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912 , 919 (9th Cir.2001). … Williams v. Chartwell Financial Services, Ltd., 204 F.3d 748, 753 (7th Cir.2000).