Cases

856 F.Supp. 543 (1994) Anna RABKIN, Plaintiff, v. Shirley DEAN, Fred Collignon, Mary Wainright, Betty Olds, Carla Woodworth, and City of Berkeley, Defendants. No. C 93-04285 CW. United States District Court, N.D. California. June 22, 1994. *544 *545 Malcolm Burnstein, Catherine Trimbur, Burnst

Opinion by Judge Wardlaw; Dissent by Judge Bybee WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: As the cost of living skyrockets around the country, and in the San Francisco Bay Area in particular, the face of American poverty is changing dramatically. More and more frequently, full-time, minimum-wage workers are unable to support their families’ basic needs. See Jim Newton, L.A.’s Growing Pay Gap Looms as Politi

Matter of Goode v Sandoval (2019 NY Slip Op 02872) Matter of Goode v Sandoval 2019 NY Slip Op 02872 Decided on April 17, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursua

Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register (2025 NY Slip Op 01717) Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register 2025 NY Slip Op 01717 Decided on March 20, 2025 Appellate Di

46 Cal.Rptr.3d 66 (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235 138 P.3d 214 Thomas BRANICK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. No. S132433. Supreme Court of California. July 24, 2006. *67 Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, Jeff S. Westerm

ORDER The City of Berkeley appeals the district court’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction preventing the city from enforcing an ordinance regulating solicitation on city sidewalks. See Berkeley Community Health Project v. City of Berkeley, 902 F.Supp. 1084, 1091 (N.D.Cal.1995). After argument, the parties reached a settlement, and petitioned this court to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 42(b). We remand

119 F.3d 794 BERKELEY COMMUNITY HEALTH PROJECT; CopWatch; ChrisStanley; Green Party; Toni Catano, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.CITY OF BERKELEY; Shirley Dean, Mayor; Daschel Butler,Chief of Police, Defendants-Appellants. No. 95-16060. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 1996.Decided July 17, 1997.

FILED MARCH 17, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE DAVID SCHULZ, JO

ORDER VACATING INJUNCTION, DISMISSING ACTION AND PROVIDING FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES WILKEN, Judge. The Court having read and considered the stipulated settlement of the parties herein: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1.The preliminary injunction heretofore issued by this Court enjoining the enforcement of Berkeley Municipal Code chapter 13.37 is hereby vacated and dissolved.

660 F.Supp.2d 205 (2009) Luis F. CRUZ-ACEVEDO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Pedro TOLEDO-DAVILA, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 07-1844 (FAB). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 30, 2009. *208 Harry Anduze-Montano, Jose A. Morales-Boscio, Harry Anduze Montano Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs. Idza Dia

442 F.Supp.2d 1141 (2006) Pedro HERNANDEZ III; Carmen Hernandez; Enrique Hernandez; Yesenia Ramirez, and Selena Hernandez, a Minor Child, by and through her Parents and Next Friends, Enrique Hernandez and Yesenia Ramirez, Plaintiffs, v. Robert CONDE; Dean Akings; Rod Weber; Brian Dougherty; R. Scott Harper; and Chris Smee, Defendants. No. 05-1103-JTM. United States District Court, D. Kansas.

The appeal is from an order of the District Court of Jim Wells County overruling the plea of privilege of appellant, Nolte, to be sued in Dallas County, Texas, upon allegations that he was a resident of the State of New York, but was temporarily residing in Dallas County. The suit was returnable to the February term of the court, which was a four-week term, beginning on February 17th, and allowed by statute to continue in session until March 15th. Nolte filed his plea of privile

127 Cal.Rptr.2d 696 (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1 Eugene EVANS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF BERKELEY et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. A097187. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five. November 25, 2002. review Granted March 26, 2003. *698 Jonathan D. Gordon, Pleas

785 F.2d 826 54 USLW 2535, 7 Employee Benefits Ca 1313 Laurence W. HOPE, Eduardo Vallejo, Arlie Baker and James E.McCauley, Plaintiffs/Appellees,v.INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, NINTHDISTRICT; International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersLocal Union No. 1245; Payroll Equity Plans, Inc.; ManuelA. Mederos; Ron Fitzsimmons; Jack McNally; and IbewPension Trust, Defendant

503 U.S. 519 (1992) YEE et al. v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA No. 90-1947. United States Supreme Court. Argued January 22, 1992. Decided April 1, 1992. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT *520 *521 O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of

371 F.3d 1137 RUI ONE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CITY OF BERKELEY, Defendant-Appellee,Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 2850, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee. No. 02-15762. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 11, 2003. Filed June 16, 2004.

360 S.W.2d 169 (1962) Ray LAMBE et al., Appellants, v. C. G. GLASSCOCK et al., Appellees. No. 13932. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. July 5, 1962. Rehearing Denied September 5, 1962. *170 Fischer, Wood, Burney & Nesbitt, Corpus Christi, Strickland, Wilkins, Hall & Mills, Mission, for appella

The appeal brings for review a final decree annulling a marriage upon the ground, in short, that the defendant, wife, had caused the complainant, husband, to marry the defendant by falsely stating and pretending at the time that she was pregnant with child by the complainant, when in truth and in fact she was not pregnant at that time. The record is voluminous but, at most, it shows that complainant and defendant had been intimately acquainted with one another for a long period of time

Manuel and Adolfo Garcia sought to probate an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of their deceased brother, Daniel Garcia. Fidela Garcia de Galindo, a daughter of said Daniel Garcia, contested the application for probate. She was unsuccessful in the County Court, but judgment was rendered refusing probate of the will in the District Court. The jury finding upon which the judgment is based was as follows: "Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that

This is a will contest. The testator, Daniel Garcia, made a will in which he left all of his property to his younger brothers, Manuel and Adolfo Garcia. Probate of the will was contested by Fidela Garcia de Galindo, wife of Rodolfo Galindo and a daughter of the testator, Daniel Garcia. Upon a former appeal of this case (189 S.W.2d 12), we held that the verdict of the jury was against the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. The record indicated