Case law

Wilshire-La Cienega Gardens Co. v. Riddell

148 F. Supp. 938 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 13, 1956

Acer Realty Co. v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 512 . No evidence is found in the records of the action at bar to substantiate the claim of $9,000 for services rendered by each or any of these individuals. … On January 27, 1950, a special meeting of the board of directors of Wilshire-La Cienega was held.

Grant v. Pitchford

565 F. Supp. 430 · District Court, S.D. California · May 2, 1983

In Feres v. … See Uptegrove v. United States, supra; Shults v. United States, 421 F.2d 170 (5th Cir.1969); Val lance v. United States, 574 F.2d 1282 (5th Cir.1978); Veillette v. United States, 615 F.2d 505 (9th Cir.1980); Chambers v.

United States v. Blasingame

116 F. 654 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 14, 1900

S. v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677 , 12 Sup. Ct. 764, 36 L. Ed. 591 , although not precisely like the case at bar, may also be aptly cited in support of said conclusion. … Parks, 58 Cal. 624 , Ex parte Cox, 63 Cal. 21 , and Board of Harbor Com’rs v. Excelsior Redwood Co., 88 Cal. 491 , 26 Pac. 375 , 22 Am. St. Rep. 321 . The demurrer to the information will be sustained.

Union Packing Co. v. Rogan

17 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 21, 1937

Du Pont (1923) 262 U.S. 234, 257 , 43 S.Ct. 567, 570 , 67 L.Ed. 965 : “It was a bill filed by members of the Chicago Board of Trade to prevent the governing board from applying to the Secretary of Agriculture to have the … Board of Trade designated as a ‘contract market’ under the Future Trading Act ( 42 Stat. 187 ), on the ground that the act was unconstitutional and its operation would impair the value of the board to its members.

In re Petition for Naturalization of Lapenieks

249 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 6, 1965

At page 883 the court quotes from Gilligan v. … Petitioner, in the instant matter, relies in chief on three cases, to wit: United States v. Lacher, 299 F.2d 919 (CA 9, 1962); United States v. Hoellger, 273 F.2d 760 (CA 2, 1959); and Cannon v.

Johnson v. SAN DIEGO WAITERS & BARTENDERS U., LOCAL 500

190 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 13, 1961

to the General Executive Board or to the Convention. … Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 1922, 260 U.S. 226, 233-234 , 43 S.Ct. 79 , 67 L.Ed. 226 .

Taylor v. MacY

252 F. Supp. 1021 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 4, 1966

the Commission decided that the arrests and convictions for offenses involving immoral conduct were sufficient by themselves to sustain the removal; (6) on October 19, 1964, the petitioner appealed this decision to the Board … two grounds on which the discretionary decision of an executive may be reviewed; the removal must comply with the procedure set out in the statutes and the decision to remove must not be arbitrary or capricious, McTiernan v.

Lichtenberger-Ferguson Co. v. Welch

49 F.2d 304 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 28, 1930

As said in Bull v. Commissioner, 7 B. T. … A. 271; Amigo Coal Co. v. Com’r of Internal Revenue, 8 B. T. A. 598; and Harris-Emery Co. v. Com’r of Internal Revenue, 10 B. T. A. 297, where the board repeated its former ruling in Appeal of Uvalde Co., 1 B. T.

Sopan Pok v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

169 F. Supp. 2d 1194 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 26, 2001

On April 16, 2001, Petitioner appeared before the Board of Prison Terms for his parole revocation hearing. Id. … Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992). See also Ashley v.

Wilkinson v. Pullman Co.

22 F.2d 177 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 20, 1927

The train made several regular stops for passengers after the plaintiffs boarded it and before it arrived at its destination, including a stop at San Luis Obispo, where, however, no one was seen to board ear No. 1. … Campbell v. Pullman Car Co. (C. C.) 42 F. 484 ; Hill v. Pullman Co. (C. C.) 188 F. 497 ; Culbreth v. Pullman Co. (D. C.) 293 F. 402 . *180 It is urged by defendant that Mrs.

United States v. Rayor

204 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 16, 1962

In Albrecht v. … (Sells v.

United States v. Osuna-Picos

319 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 16, 1970

In Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Errico, and Scott v. … Applying definitions enunciated by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Matter of Eng, 12 I&N Dec. 855 ), the Court of Appeals in Godoy v.

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

353 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 20, 2005

See United States v. … Corp. v.

States v. Eleven Certain Parcels of Land

45 F. Supp. 289 · District Court, S.D. California · May 28, 1942

Brown, 100 Cal. 626 , 35 P. 323 ; Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. Belcher, 4 Cal.2d 268 , 48 P.2d 681 , holding certain preferences may be set aside in bankruptcy proceedings. … Joint Pole Association v. Steele, 213 Cal. 233 , at page 235, 2 P.2d 335 ; Roberts v. Burr, 135 Cal. 156 , 67 P. 46 ; Merced Bank v. Ivett, 127 Cal. 134 , 59 P. 393 ; Foster v. Foster, 123 Cal.App. 1 , 10 P.2d 796 .

Bryan v. City of Carlsbad

297 F. Supp. 3d 1107 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 19, 2018

See Ivey v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska , 673 F.2d 266 , 268 (9th Cir.1982). The pleading standard is governed by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. … See Brown v. Kelly , 2016 WL 5661751 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016) (citing Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson , 640 F.3d 948 , 956 (9th Cir. 2011).

Mosier v. Goodcell

49 F.2d 391 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 19, 1931

Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Burnet, 282 U. S. 283 , 51 S. Ct. 140 , 75 L. Ed.-, each decided on January 5, 1931. … Also in Aiken v.

Irvin v. Zamora

161 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 31, 2001

The second approach taken by the Eleventh Circuit in Brown v. … Brown, 212 F.3d at 1208 , quoting Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir.1998).

Tindle v. Celebrezze

210 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, S.D. California · Nov 26, 1962

LaLone, 1945, 152 F.2d 43 , in interpreting this section, has stated: “Under this section of the Social Security Act providing for appeals from an administrative board, as under other similar acts, the board’s findings of … This same finality extends to the Board’s inferences and conclusions from the evidence if a substantial basis is found for them.” (p. 44) The same court in a later case adopted the same criterion. (Graham v.

Bloom v. Furness-Withy & Co.

293 F. 98 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 25, 1923

S. (21 Wall.) 576 ; Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 217 ; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149 . … Ed. 264 ; Monongahela River Coal & Coke Co. v. Schinnerer, 196 Fed. 375 , 117 C. C. A. 193 . In State of Maryland v. Miller (D.

United States v. Southern Pac. R.

123 F. 1007 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 15, 1903

The views expressed by this court in the case of Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. Brown et al. (C. C.) 68 Fed. 333 , and in the case of United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company et al. (C.