Case law

United States v. Halifax County Board of Education

314 F. Supp. 65 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 23, 1970

The relevant cases here would appear to be Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I), 347 U.S. 483 , 74 S.Ct. 686 , 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), Brown v. … Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 , 75 S.Ct. 753 , 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955), Green v. County School Board of New Kent, 391 U.S. 430 , 88 S.Ct. 1689 , 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), Alexander v.

Brown v. Lee

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 10, 2019

Brown, 962 N.Y.S. 2d at 912. … Brown, 962 N.Y.S.2d at 246.

Brown v. Coulston

District Court, E.D. Texas · May 29, 2020

See Collier v. … But see Camarillo v.

Brown v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CARLTON BROWN, … Appearances: Carlton Brown Stormville, NY

Le v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 22, 2021

Huy Le (“Le”), a self-represented litigant in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against Governor Kate Brown (“Governor Brown … Mot. to Stay at 3, ECF No. 10; Maney et al. v. Brown et al., 6:20-cv-00570-SB (“Maney”), ECF No. 1.)

Thomas v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2021

Mot. to Stay at 3, ECF No. 10; Maney et al. v. Brown et al., 6:20-cv-00570-SB (“Maney”), ECF No. 1.) … Patton v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 19-cv-00081, 2019 WL 851933, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2019) (citing Landis v. N.A. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936), and Lockyer v.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 19, 2021

A176900); Ex. 4 (Crook County Circuit Court order denying a TRO and preliminary injunction in Oregon Fraternal Order of Police v. Brown, Case No. 21CV35125). … .”); Johnson. v. Brown, Case No. 3:21-cv-1494-SI, 2021 WL 4846060, at *13 (D. Or. Oct. 18, 2021) (“As Jacobson reveals, the right to refuse vaccination is not deeply rooted in this nation’s history.

Betts v. Hamilton County Board of Mental Retardation

631 F. Supp. 1198 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 1986

Orzel v. … In Morelock v.

Robinson v. Brown

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 25, 2020

, et all [sic],” although Marian Brown is the only defendant identified. … See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (Sth Cir. 1997). The court concludes that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would therefore be frivolous. Howard v.

Morton v. Brown

District Court, D. South Carolina · Oct 8, 2020

See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). … See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.

Kramer v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF BALTIMORE COUNTY

788 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2011

Defendant then argued in its reply that county school boards have a “ ‘pe *430 culiar hybrid nature,’ ” with “ ‘attributes of both county and State agencies.’ ” Id. at 10-11 (quoting Board of Ed. v. … Because of its “local character,” as evidenced by the fact that county boards of education set salaries of public education employees in accordance with the personnel system established by the county boards of education,

Board of Trustees v. D'Elia Erectors, Inc.

17 F. Supp. 2d 511 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 31, 1998

Pursuant to the CBAs, D’Elia was required to make contributions and submit monthly reports to plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund and the Board of Trustees of the National Training … See Johnson v.

Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Alaska Industrial Board

11 Alaska 327 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jun 13, 1947

Notwithstanding this, however, the Board found that the hemorrhage was due to the long hours of employment which, it held, constituted unusual circumstances, citing United Paperboard Co. v. … Accordingly the decision of the Board is reversed.

Ezekwo v. American Board of Internal Medicine

18 F. Supp. 2d 271 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 12, 1998

See Bryan v. James E. Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr., 33 F.3d 1318, 1333 (11th Cir.1994); Austin v. McNamara, 979 F.2d 728, 734-35 (9th Cir.1992). … Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 2072 , 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992). See also, Irvin Indus. v.

(HC) Boddie v. Burton

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 22, 2022

Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1107 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting 12 Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir.1985)). … Numerous courts have applied this rule 14 to a prisoner’s allegation that the Board of Parole violated §§ 5011(b) and 2236. See Crawford v. 15 Swarthout, No. 2:13-cv-1394 DAD P, 2013 WL 3968161, at *1 (E.D. Cal.

BROWN v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2021

) District Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand v. ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. … Long v. Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 400 (3d Cir. 2004); Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d Cir. 2006). “Among the factors that may justify denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, and futility.”

Moore v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 6, 2021

KATE BROWN, et al., Defendants. … George v.

Taylor v. Board of Education of City School District of New Rochelle

191 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 1961

In 1954, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, supra. This decision heralded a new epoch in the quest for equality of the individual. … See Brown v. Board of Education, 1955, 349 U.S. 294, 301 , 75 S.Ct. 753, 757 , 99 L.Ed. 1083 .

Hoblock v. Albany County Board of Elections

488 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 14, 2006

See, inter alia, Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.2005) (Walker, C.J.); Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 487 F.Supp.2d 90 (N.D.N.Y.2006) (Kahn, D.J.); Hoblock v. … .); Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 341 F.Supp.2d 169 (N.D.N.Y.2004) (Kahn, D.J.). Familiarity is therefore presumed. Currently before the Court are Defendant Board’s challenges and objections (see Dkt.

Bianchi v. Board of Supervisors

268 F. Supp. 1021 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 4, 1966

Board as presently constituted. … The court is reinforced in this conclusion by the recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Graham v.