1725 search results for query *

Summary: 60 F. Supp. It was also at the bottom of our own decision in Peninsular [Chemical] Co. v. Levinson, 6 Cir., 247 F. 658, 159 C. C.A. 560, and of Akron[-Overland Tire] Co. v. Willys [-Overland] Co., 3 Cir., 273 F. 674; Imperial [Cotto Sales] Co. v. [N. K.] Fairbanks Co., 50 App.D.C. 250, 270 F. 686; Aunt Jemima [Mills] Co. v. Rigney [& Co.] 2 Cir., 247 F. 407, 159 C. C.A. 461, L.R.A.1918C, 1039. [3] Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 10(b); Ford Motor Co. v. McFarland, D.C.Wash.1939, 29 F. Supp. more.

Summary: 702 F. Supp. U.S. v. Telink, 681 F. Supp. Since that time, several cases have been decided that have prompted the court to reexamine the sufficiency of the indictment: United States v. Dadanian, 856 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir.1988), United States v. Egan, 860 F.2d 904 (9th Cir.1988), and United States v. Zauber, 857 F.2d 137 (3d Cir.1988). See, e.g., United States v. Price, 788 F.2d 234, 236-37 (4th Cir.1986), vacated, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S. Ct. 3254, 97 L. Ed. Since the McNally case, the Ninth Circuit more.

Summary: 444 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (2006) Drew TAKACS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.G. EDWARDS AND SONS, INC., Defendant. *1101 *1102 *1103 James F. Clapp, Dostart Clapp and Coveney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. Now, after a careful consideration of the pleadings, relevant exhibits, the oral argument of counsel at the hearing, and for the *1104 reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its entirety. more.

Summary: 117 F. Supp. The first cause of action is asserted against all named defendants and the allegations material here are briefly: that defendant Milton Sperling is a son-in-law of defendant Harry M. Warner; that the latter and his two brothers, Albert Warner and defendant Jack L. Warner, "control and dominate Warner Bros." and "actually select, dominate and control the directors and officers of Warner Bros."; that about the summer of 1945 the individual defendants Milton Sperling and Harry M. and more.

Summary: 92 F. Supp. Section 1400(b) of the 1948 Judicial Code is cast in the alternative — jurisdiction arises in the district where the defendant "resides" or where acts of infringement and a regular and established place of business exists.

Summary: 37 F. Supp. See Duldulao v. INS, 90 F.3d 396, 399 (9th Cir.1996) ("AEDPA section 440(a), which affects the power of the court rather than the rights and obligations of the parties, thus revokes our jurisdiction to review Duldulao's final order of deportation."). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997) ("As to cases in which a final deportation or exclusion order was filed after October 30, 1996, and which were pending before April 1, 1997, IIRIRA's transitional rules apply. See more.

Summary: 149 F. Supp. See Cheng v. Boeing, 708 F.2d 1406, 1409 (9th Cir.1983) (citing Paper Operations Consultants Int'l, Ltd. v. SS Hong Kong Amber, 513 F.2d 667, 670 (9th Cir.1975)). Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co., 918 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 256 n. 23, 102 S. Ct. 252). See Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257, 102 S. Ct. 252; Cheng, 708 F.2d at 1409. Co., 867 F. Supp. Cf. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 27 F. Supp. See Mizokami Bros. of Arizona, Inc. v. more.

Summary: 12 F. Supp. This statement is quoted with approval in Eichel v. Marcin (D. C. N. Y. 1913) 241 F. 404, 408. Hubges v. Belasco (C. C. N. Y. 1904) 130 F. 388; Stevenson v. Harris (D. C. N. Y. 1917) 238 F. 432. Vernon v. Sam S. & Lee Shubert, Inc. (D. C. N. Y. 1915) 220 F. 694. In Underhill v. Belasco (D. C. N. Y. 1918) 254 F. 838, the court had before it two dramatic productions. 1930) 45 F.(2d) 119; Wiren v. Shubert Theatre Corporation (D. C. N. Y. 1933) 5 F. Supp. 358; Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn more.

Summary: 234 F. Supp. In these multiparty proceedings, the plaintiff Pasadena Investment Co., a corporation (PIC), named as original party defendants: Pasadena Air Products, Inc., a corporation (PAP) and Bradford Industries, Inc., a corporation (Bradford), now each succeeded by William A. Wylie as Trustee in Bankruptcy (Trustee); Bruce Stevens, an officer of PAP and Bradford (Stevens); North American Aviation, Inc., a corporation (American); General Dynamics/Convair (Convair); and Robert A. Riddell, more.

Published Opinion | Federal District, Federal, | District Court Sd California | cited by: 1 Primary Sources | citing: 10
Summary: 16 F. Supp. On January 24, 1936, the Oil Tool Exchange, Inc., filed a petition alleging that it had sold and delivered to the bankrupt under a conditional sales contract dated August 17, 1935, a "Blue Streak" closed type power gas engine with all its appurtenances for the sum of $1,205.03, and under a conditional sales contract dated November 20, 1935, a "Blue Streak" closed type power unit with high compression cylinder head and all its appurtenances for the sum of $1,040.63. The section, so more.

Summary: 467 B.R. 191 (2011) In re James W. KEENAN, d/b/a Data Property Services, Debtor. James W. Keenan, Appellant, v. Ross M. Pyle, et al., Appellees. December 13, 2011. Debtor/Appellant James W. Keenan appeals the bankruptcy court's August 4, 2010 order granting the liquidating trustee's motion for an order: (1) approving final plan distribution; (2) discharging trustee and exonerating and canceling bonds; and (3) closing the case. In addition, Debtor/Appellant appeals the bankruptcy court's August more.

Summary: 115 F. Supp. *538 *539 *540 Prentiss Moore, Bart F. Wade, Ralph H. Nutter, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff. *541 On August 15, 1949, Fleetlines, Inc., intervenor here, filed with the Commission a complaint against Arrowhead Freight Lines, Ltd., plaintiff here, under § 204(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 304(c), alleging that Arrowhead "is performing transportation between points in California, such as Los Angeles, on the one hand, and points in Nevada, such as Las Vegas * * * more.

Summary: 87 F. Supp. Background A. Procedural Background On January 12, 1999, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in this action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, North County Branch, naming as defendants three alleged residents of California: Ernst & Young, LLP ("EY-LLP"), James Pope ("Pope"), and a non-existent entity. On May 5, 1999, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in state court naming EY-LLP, Pope, Does 1-100, and, for the first time, Ernst & Young more.

Summary: 84 F. Supp. As a result of a pretrial hearing and a trial on the merits the crucial and ultimate question for decision is the ascertainment as to whether under the entire record before the court the plaintiff has sustained her claim that the Government has wrongfully collected $11,071.97 from her by the refusal of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to deduct from the gross estate of decedent Poole half of $88,243.64 as her share of community property under applicable laws of the State of more.

Summary: 278 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (2003) QWEST COMMUNICATIONS CORP., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. Jonathan WEISZ, an individual, Robert Weisz, an individual, and Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants. The Complaint prays for the Court to: (1) set aside the allegedly fraudulent conveyances; (2) enjoin Jonathan and Robert Weisz, and/or their agents, from transferring or otherwise disposing of the funds; (3) require Jonathan and Robert Weisz to account to Qwest for all profits and proceeds earned more.

Summary: 260 F. Supp. 139 (1966) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Thomas Kimball HILL, Defendant. This case came before the undersigned, the defendant having waived jury trial, under a four-count indictment charging him with willful and knowledgeable evasion of income tax for the years 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962. All the facts were stipulated, including the findings of fact set forth by Judge Carter in a pre-indictment civil proceeding wherein the defendant moved for the suppression and return of more.

Summary: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction having been heard and submitted for decision, and it appearing to the court: (a) That plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court under 15 U.S.C.A. § 26, and seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent threatened loss or damage to plaintiff's business due to claimed violation of the anti-trust laws, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-33; (b) That plaintiff is a California corporation engaged in the manufacture in California of accessories such as buttons and more.

Summary: 49 F. Supp. 789 (1943) ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. *790 Jonathan C. Gibson, M. W. Reed, L. W. Butterfield, and William F. Brooks, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff. This is an action by the plaintiff carrier against the defendant shippers for alleged undercharges on 105 separate shipments of household goods, and arises over the fact that each shipment was transported in two *791 forty-foot cars instead of one fifty-foot car. Originally, the shippers were billed on the theory that in each more.

Summary: 915 F. Supp. He cites Mittendorf v. Stone Lumber Co., 874 F. Supp. See Dickstein v. duPont, 443 F.2d 783, 785 (1st Cir.1971); Erving v. Virginia Squires Basketball Club, 468 F.2d 1064, 1069 (2d Cir.1972); Tenney Eng'g, Inc. v. United Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers, 207 F.2d 450, 452 (3d Cir.1953); Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Bates, 71 F.3d 592, 596-602 (6th Cir.1995) (rejecting earlier dictum in Willis v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 948 F.2d 305, 311 (6th Cir.1991); Miller Brewing Co. v. Brewery Workers more.