District Court for the District of California Court Cases

Search
  1. In Re Hurdle (1999)

    Debtors Leslie George W. Hurdle and Celia Jane Hurdle ("Debtors") seek an order (1) enjoining the Chapter 7 Trustee, Byron Z. Moldo ("Trustee"), from collecting royalties which they claim are exempt pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 704.070; (2) requiring the Trustee to refund to the Debtors any and all royalty monies which have been transmitted to the Trustee, by ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) or any other royalty collection trust listed in [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. SV 98-21853-AG
  2. United States v. One Dodge Sedan (1928)

    This is a libel to forfeit the respondent, for that, as alleged, it was used to remove, conceal, and deposit Ng Ka Py liquor with intent to defraud the plaintiff of taxes thereon imposed, due and unpaid.


    Court: District Court for the District of California Docket: 19431
  3. EEOC v. Davey Tree Surgery Co. (1987)

    Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brought this action on behalf of Ron Davidson against Davey Tree Surgery Company ("Davey") and Local 1245, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Union"). In defendant Union's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, the parties address the question whether section 19 of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 169 (1980), limits the scope of section 701(j) of the Civil [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of California Docket: C-86-5803 MHP
  4. Morici Corp. v. United States (1980)

    As set forth in this court's earlier Opinion, Morici Corp. v. United States, 491 F.Supp. 466 (E.D.Cal.1980) (hereinafter Morici I), plaintiff seeks to recover damages of $1,000,000 incurred as a result of the loss of fruit and nut trees and crops on plaintiff's land located on the banks of the Sacramento River downstream from the facilities of the Central Valley Project. The original complaint alleged in part:


    Court: District Court for the District of California Docket: Civ. No. S-77-218-TJM
  5. Stidham v. Swope (1949)

    Stidham has presented to me his verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition alleges that he was persuaded to waive counsel and to plead guilty to an indictment by the federal grand jury of the Western District of Missouri, charging him with transporting a stolen automobile from Birmingham, Alabama, to Kansas City, Missouri, knowing it to be stolen. It alleges that he so was persuaded upon representation by the counsel for the government that he would receive a very lenient [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of California Docket: 28654H
  6. Northern California MD Ass'n v. Interment Ass'n (1954)

    This suit for treble damages involves the retail sale of gravestones in San Francisco and Colma, and arises under provisions of law contained in U.S.C.A., Title 15, more particularly Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended.


    Court: District Court for the District of California Docket: 32982
  7. In Re Wrublewski (1947)

    Petitioner, an officer of the United States Navy, seeks by his petition for the writ of habeas corpus to be released from the custody of naval authorities who hold him at the United States Receiving station, Yerba Buena Island, in this district, after his conviction on July 30, 1946, by a court martial of the crime of voluntary manslaughter and subsequent sentence to five years imprisonment. The court issued an order directing the commanding officers of the Receiving Station to show cause why [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of California Docket: 26862
  8. United States v. Thornburg (1993)

    On June 10, 1992, Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging breach of a written guaranty contract, requesting judicial foreclosure of a mortgage on real property and a deficiency judgment. In answer, the Defendants raised, as an affirmative defense, expiration of the six year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a)[1]. Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment arguing that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff is entitled to foreclose and collect a deficiency.

    Court: District Court for the District of California Docket: CV-F-92-5400 DLB

1 of 1 Page(s)