⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “California Trucking Assoc. v. CA Air Resources Board”

New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2026-04-08 · Published · cited 0×
The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Clerk of the Court for compliance with Rule 23-112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: __________ 3 Filin
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 2015-11-25 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 14-15-00991-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009-03-20 · Published · cited 0×
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS,  INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; THE HARBOR DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; THE BOARD OF HARBOR No. 08-56503 COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS D.C. No. ANGELES; THE CITY OF LONG BEACH; THE HARBOR  2:08-CV-04920-
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011-07-12 · Published · cited 9× · 651 F.3d 1118; 2011 WL 2684942
Chief Judge KOZINSKI, with whom Judges TALLMAN and RAWLINSON join, dissenting in part. By going out of its way to rule on the non-statutory labor exemption, the majority decides an important legal question that will have absolutely no effect on anyone involved in this case. We hold that there’s no categorical antitrust violation under the quick look doctrine; nor can such a violation
District Court, E.D. California · 2004-08-27 · Published · cited 14× · 333 F. Supp. 2d 906; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17190; 2004 WL 1946303
333 F.Supp.2d 906 (2004) NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Roger PATTERSON, etc., et al., Defendants. No. CIV.S-88-1658 LKK. United States District Court, E.D. California. August 27, 2004. *907 *908 Michael E. Wall, Hamilton Candee, Jared Huffman, Natural Resources Defe
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004-01-13 · Published · cited 11× · 355 F.3d 179
OAKES, Senior Circuit Judge. We are called upon in this case to determine when section 325 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), as amended by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (“NAECA”), took effect so as to prevent the Department of Energy from amending downward efficiency standards for certain home appliances. The Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), the Public Utility La
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011-07-12 · Published · cited 1× · 615 F.3d 1171
651 F.3d 1118 (2011) State of CALIFORNIA, ex rel. Kamala D. HARRIS,[*] Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAFEWAY, INC., a Safeway Company doing business as Vons; Albertsons, Inc.; Ralphs Grocery Company, a division of the Kroger Company; Food 4 Less Food Company, a division of the Kroger Company; Vons Companies Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Safeway, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. State of California, ex rel. Kamala D. Harris, Pl
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004-01-13 · Published · cited 26× · 355 F.3d 179; 57 ERC (BNA) 1833; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 414
355 F.3d 179 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, Public Utility Law Project, State of Connecticut, State of Vermont, State of Maine, State of New Jersey, State of Nevada, State of California, Consumer Federation of America & State of New York, Petitioners,v.Spencer ABRAHAM, as Secretary of the United States Department of Energy & United States Department of Energy, Respondents, andAir-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute, S
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012-08-27 · Published · cited 18× · 693 F.3d 847; 2012 WL 3641744; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18124; 2012 D.A.R. 11
OPINION SEABRIGHT, District Judge: In two comprehensive ordinances, the City and County of San Francisco requires tow truck drivers to obtain permits to operate in San Francisco, and towing firms to obtain permits to conduct business within San Francisco. The ordinances include numerous conditions and prerequisites for obtaining or maintaining towing per
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017-08-04 · Published · cited 14× · 865 F.3d 740; 2017 WL 3318834; 209 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3402; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14342
GARLAND, Chief Judge: Por many years, Cable News Network (CNN) used outside contractors to provide technicians to operate the electronic equipment at its Washington, D.C. and New York City bureaus. In 2003, CNN changed that longstanding arrangement, terminating its latest contracts and hiring a new in-house workforce. The National Labor Relations Board found that CNN’s replacement of its unionized contractor with a nonunion, i
Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2017-04-26 · Published · cited 8× · 66 V.I. 522; 2017 WL 1573239; 2017 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 25
OPINION OF THE COURT (April 26, 2017) Cabret, Associate Justice. Ellen Stewart, Perry Cowan, Delia Thomas, Hilary Activille, Anthony Romano, Andrea King, Donald King, Carolyn Tyson, Mr. and Mrs. Petrosky, and A. Jeffrey Weiss (collectively “appellants”), neighboring land owners in Vessup Bay Estates, St. Thomas, appeal from a Superior Court order dismissing their action for declarato
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002-08-06 · Published · cited 0× · 302 F.3d 928; 2002 WL 1792612
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge. This consolidated appeal of two separate actions requires us to consider the constitutionality of an innovative municipal ordinance enacted by the City of Lodi, California (“Lodi” or “the City”) to remedy hazardous waste contamination within its borders. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“Fireman’s Fund”), Unigard Insurance Company, and Unigard Security Insurance Company (“Unigard”) (collectively “the
District Court, N.D. California · 2000-07-20 · Published · cited 3× · 109 F. Supp. 2d 1186; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11617; 2000 WL 1201610
109 F.Supp.2d 1186 (2000) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. No. C 97-3660 TEH. United States District Court, N.D. California. July 20, 2000. *1187 *1188 *1189 Maureen E. Mahone
Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · 2015-08-04 · Published · cited 0×
FILED 15-0092 8/4/2015 3:59:31 PM tex-6352761 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001-09-11 · Published · cited 33× · 266 F.3d 1064; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 9865; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7985; 26 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2504; 168 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2253; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20156; 86 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1025
266 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2001) AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; AIRLINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CONFERENCE; FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION; UNITED AIR LINES, INC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,v.CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION; SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. No. 99-16391 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
District Court, W.D. New York · 1997-11-19 · Published · cited 36× · 988 F. Supp. 127; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22436; 1997 WL 835440
988 F.Supp. 127 (1997) Gregory F. DANIEL, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN BOARD OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, et al., Defendants. No. 90-CV-1086A. United States District Court, W.D. New York. November 19, 1997. *128 *129 *130 *1
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000-12-05 · Published · cited 21× · 123 F. Supp. 2d 245; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17514; 2000 WL 1779083
123 F.Supp.2d 245 (2000) CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, Plaintiff, v. BERETTA U.S.A. CORP., et al., Defendants. No. CIV. A. 99-2518 JBS. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. December 5, 2000. *246 *247 Lisa J. Rodriguez, Kenneth I. Trujillo, Ira Neill Richards, Louis C. Ric