Case law

Cravens v. Welch

10 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 28, 1935

As the Supreme Court of the United States said, in the case of Dayton Power & Light Company v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 292 U. S. 290 , 54 S. Ct. 647, 652 , 78 L. … This is true of opinion evidence generally, whether addressed to a jury, * * * or to a judge, * * * or to a statutory board. * * * To these perturbing tendencies, all operating to w*eaken the persuasive force of their opinions

In re Los Angeles Lumber Products Co.

46 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 29, 1942

They can elect their board of directors and thus control the appointment of executive managers. … In re Meadows, Williams & Co., D.C.N.Y., 181 F. 911 , 25 A.B.R. 100; Billings v. [Charles] Millar & Son Co., D.C.N.Y., 227 F. 185 , 35 A.B.R. 846.”

San Diego Cnty. Sch. Risk Mgmt. Joint Powers Auth. v. Liberty Ins. Corp.

339 F. Supp. 3d 1019 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 16, 2018

Al v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, et. Al. , 65 Cal. Comp. Cases 1441 , 2000 Cal. Wrk. Comp. … Decisions by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board are not binding precedent, but are persuasive in front of the WC Board. BART , 111 F.Supp.3d at 1072 n. 4 ; Griffith v. WCAB , 209 Cal.

McMahan v. Laird

320 F. Supp. 485 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 4, 1970

“It is firmly settled * * * that the appropriate authorities, be they the local draft boards, appeal boards or [Navy] officials, are not vested with unbridled and unfettered discretion in assessing and evaluating the evidence … Packard v. Rollins, 422 F.2d 525 (8th Cir.1970).

Wenzel & Henoch Const. Co. v. Metropolitan Water Dist.

18 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 24, 1937

Higgins (1915) 170 Cal. 541 , 150 P. 769 ; Brown v. Aguilar (1927) 202 Cal. 143 , 259 P. 735 ; Monson v. … See United States v. Gleason, supra; Martinsburg & Potomac R. R. Co. v. March, supra. The . fact that the clause does not say so in so many words does not stand in the way of this interpretation. See Brown v.

Matter of Shen

7 B.R. 942 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 16, 1980

In Re Haker, 411 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1969); Kheel v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 355 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1965). Such a motion will be granted only for cause shown, Hull v. … BROWN IN THIS PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR STIPULATED ORDER. IT COVERS MUCH MORE-WELL, FOR THE PURPOSE THAT MR. BROWN IS OFFERING IT, IT SIMPLY PROTECTS THE TRUSTEE.

In re National Trunk & Luggage Mfg. Co.

33 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, S.D. California · May 23, 1940

Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 11 Cal.2d 156 , 78 P.2d 731 , 117 A.L.R. 838 . This interpretation is binding on the United States Courts. Erie Railway Co. v. … The facts seem to bring the case within the reasoning of James v.

In Re Pacific Oil & Meal Co.

24 F. Supp. 767 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 10, 1938

Wright v. Chase National Bank, 4 Cir., 92 F.2d 271 ; Blessing v. Blanchard, supra. … Wintermote v.

Murschel v. Paramo

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 27, 2019

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 18 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 19 2000). … Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th 18 Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on 19 other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

Sigurdson v. Del Guercio

154 F. Supp. 220 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 26, 1957

His findings and decision were approved and adopted by the appropriate officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and plaintiff’s appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals on March 19, … Shaughnessy v.

Valdez v. Kismet Acquisition, LLC

474 B.R. 907 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 5, 2012

Hernandez: The case [Brady v. Brown] is a 9th Circuit opinion that basically says the judgment that Judge Adler entered against you and Alex does not violate either U.S. or Mexican law. … Application of the Proper Legal Standard Where monetary sanctions are awarded, “the amount of monetary sanctions must be ‘reasonable.’ ” Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir.2006) (citing Brown v.

Repara v. Beers

993 F. Supp. 2d 1214 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 6, 2014

Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 , 119 S.Ct. 1439 , 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999) (deferring to a Board of Immigration Appeals order). See also Montana Wilderness Ass’n v. Connell, 725 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir.2013). … See also Spencer Enters, v.

Persian Gulf Inc. v. BP West Coast Products LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 27, 2019

(See doc. no. 239-3 (Transcript of Official Electronic Sound 17 Recording of Proceedings); doc. no. 255 ("Opp'n").) 18 The issue is governed by Brown Bag Software v. … Unlike in Brown Bag, Mr.

In re Sheff

46 F. Supp. 795 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 1942

In re Brown, D.C., 35 F.Supp. 619, 622 , the court interprets the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bluthenthal v. … Kuntz v.

United States v. Certain Parcels of Land

131 F. Supp. 65 · District Court, S.D. California · May 3, 1955

See Spencer v. Railroad Retirement Board, 3 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 342, 343 ; Walker-Hill Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 162 F.2d 259, 263 , certiorari denied, 1947, 332 U.S. 771 , 68 S.Ct. 85 , 92 L.Ed. 356 ; N. L. R. … B. v. T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Co., 3 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 304, 305 ; United States v. Globe Indemnity Co., 2 Cir., 94 F.2d 576, 578 , certiorari denied, 1938, 304 U.S. 575 , 58 S.Ct. 1047 , 82 L. Ed. 1538 ; Brown v.

Neale v. Railroad Commission

32 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, S.D. California · Apr 10, 1940

As such, they are licensed by the State Board of Equalization of the State of California. They aver that they have been threatened with prosecution for failing to obtain permits as “ticket sellers” under the Act. … McNutt v. General Motors, etc., Corp., 1936, 298 U.S. 178 , 56 S.Ct. 780 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 ; DeWar v. Brooks, D.C.Nev.1936, 16 F.Supp. 636 ; Gavica v. Donaugh, 9 Cir. 1937, 93 F.2d 173 ; Clark v.

Cavalier v. Newsom

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 11, 2020

He does not allege that Newsom or Doe 1 personally participated or served as a decision‒maker on his September 6, 2019 parole 2 suitability review tribunal.7 See e.g., Brown v. … Block v. 5 Potter, 631 F.2d 233, 238, 241 (3d Cir. 1980) (finding parole board violated petitioner’s 6 right to equal protection because, in the minutes explaining the denial of parole, the board 7 “considered Block

Martins v. New West Investment Group

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

See Brown v. Elec. … Starr v.

In re United States

331 F. Supp. 3d 1112 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 3, 2018

CF Koohi v. … Tobar v.

Grabowski v. C.H. Robinson Co.

817 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 19, 2011

(ECF Nos. 52, 54). *1180 Plaintiff attached to his Notice Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 197 Cal.App.4th 489 , 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 854 (2011). … To the extent Plaintiff has raised the arguments made by the California Court of Appeal in Brown , the Court finds the reasoning of Quevedo to be more persuasive. See Nelson v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, No.