Cases

Filed 6/16/23 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, E077772 Plaintiff and Appellant; (Super.Ct.No. CIVSB2025319) v.

Filed 5/25/23 See Dissenting Opinion CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION ∗ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, E077772 Plaintiff and Appellant; (Super.Ct.No. CIVSB2025319) v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., Chief Judge. Plaintiffs Joan Shelley, Michelle Loftis and Sandra Hoyopatubbi (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege violations of federal constitutional law and state tort law by municipal defendants, the County of San Joaquin and San Joaquin County Sheriff Steve Moore (collectively “Defendants”); Plaintiffs also sue Sheriff Moore in his individual capacity fo

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION AND COMPLAINT RICHARD SEEBORG, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This suit is the latest development in an on-going land-use dispute between Plaintiff AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc. (“AHF”) and the City of San Francisco (“the City”). AHF claims it was unconstitutionally targeted by San Fr

Filed 9/27/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO NAVY BROADWAY D072568 COMPLEX COALITION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (San Diego Super. Ct. Nos. 37-2013-000772

ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. On August 22, 2014, the court heard argument on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants County of Sacramento, City of Rancho Cordova, Officer Sean Barry, and Officer Manuel Kon-stantinidis (collectively defendants), as well as plaintiffs motion to modify the scheduling order. Robert Chalfant appeared for defendants; Manolo Olaso appeared for plaint

Filed 3/25/19 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, A146605 v. (Mendocino County STATE WATER RESOURCES Super

Filed 2/22/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, A146605 v. (Mendocino County STATE WATER RESOURCES Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CVPT-14- CONTROL BOARD,

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 123 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 124 I. INTRODUCTION (1) In this appeal we deal with a technical question

14 Cal.App.3d 489 (1971) 92 Cal. Rptr. 433 BEVERLY L. BRIGGS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Appellants; AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Intervener and Respondent. Docket No. 27707. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two. January 19, 1971.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 918 OPINION The Bond and Undertaking Law (Code Civ. Proc., § 995.010 et seq.)1 provides that a governmental entity cannot be required to provide an undertaking in order to obtain a temporary restraining order <

Sawver, C. J., concurring. The facts of this ease are fully stated by Mr. Justice Field, and need not be repeated here. The questions presented are of the gravest character, and of the utmost importance to the people of California. While I concur, generally, in the conclusions, and in the line of argument adopted by my associate, I shall also state as briefly as I reasonably can, considering the gravity of the questio

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 741 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 742 OPINION This is a personal injury action against the City of San Bernardino (City) for injuries allegedl

THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Hearing: Mailed: March 7, 2013 June 18, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Philip Gover,

Appeals from stated parts of a judgment of the superior court of San Diego County in an action to recover judgment for the amount of certain trust funds of an estate, which funds were deposited in defendant bank by one E. M. Barber, guardian of the estate. The complaint is in twenty-one counts, but relates to only ten transactions. There are two counts for each transaction except one, which is set forth in three counts. The court gave judgment for the plaintiff on its first and second

59 Cal.Rptr.3d 385 (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1399 Christian Ellis HAGESETH, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Mateo County, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. No. A115390. Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two. May 21, 2007. *387 Carleton L. Briggs, for Petitioner

Sawveh, J., concurring. The discussion in this opinion, though applicable to all the cases tried, will have special reference to the facts in the case of Santa Clara county, No. 3,074. This case is similar, in the main features, to that of San Mateo Co. v. Southern Pac. R. Co., decided by this court last year. 8 Sawy. 281; [S. C. 18 Fed. Rep. 147, 722.]

47 Cal.4th 1050 (2010) 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 767 222 P.3d 214 CATHY LEXIN et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. No. S157341. Supreme Court of California. January 25, 2010. *1060 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and

Filed 2/4/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR RAMON BOJORQUEZ SALCIDO, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN A158016 MATEO COUNTY, (San Mateo County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. SC024541A

Filed 12/13/19 (unmodified opinion attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO TROY ADAM ASHMUS, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN A158011 MATEO COUNTY, (San Mateo County Re