18 Cited authorities

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell
632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 3,900 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a “serious questions” version of the sliding scale approach to preliminary injunctions survives Winter
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
458 U.S. 419 (1982) Cited 1,118 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a permanent physical occupation constitutes a per se taking
Harris Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
530 U.S. 238 (2000) Cited 542 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the authorization under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 "extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary 'party in interest' to a transaction barred by [29 U.S.C. § 1106]"
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel
524 U.S. 498 (1998) Cited 557 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that levying Coal Act premiums on a pre-1978 signatory operator was an unconstitutional taking because the operator never agreed to provide lifetime benefits to its retirees
American Trucking v. City of Los Angeles
559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,264 times
Holding plaintiff seeking injunction "not entitled to relief" in absence of showing "likelihood of irreparable harm"
United States v. Security Industrial Bank
459 U.S. 70 (1982) Cited 592 times
Holding that however “rational the exercise of the bankruptcy power may be, that inquiry is quite separate from the question whether the enactment takes property within the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment”
City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Ret. Sys.
224 Cal.App.4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 111 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that city had not unreasonably delayed in filing suit, because it had commenced the action "less than two years after the earliest date any improper [pension] payments were made and well within any applicable statute of limitations"
Chicago, Burlington c. R'D v. Chicago
166 U.S. 226 (1897) Cited 999 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits uncompensated takings, but concluding that the court below made no errors of law in assessing just compensation
City of Pleasanton v. Bd. of Admin. of the Cal. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys.
211 Cal.App.4th 522 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 33 times
Concluding that on-call duty was not part of a normal workweek where the employee was only being compensated "at a small fraction of his base salary"
Heckmann v. Ahmanson
168 Cal.App.3d 119 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) Cited 81 times
Recognizing the availability of a constructive trust to prevent dissipation of assets
Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
Fed. R. Evid. 201 Cited 28,274 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."
Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Cited 22,408 times 87 Legal Analyses
Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice
Section 2224 - Involuntary trustee of thing gained by fraud, accident, mistake or undue influence
Cal. Civ. Code § 2224 Cited 418 times
Naming person who "gains a thing by fraud, accident, mistake, undue influence, the violation of a trust, or other wrongful act" as an "involuntary trustee of the thing gained"
Section 125 - Cafeteria plans
26 U.S.C. § 125 Cited 75 times 20 Legal Analyses
Limiting the availability of this provision to "a participant in a[n] [employer-provided] cafeteria plan"

City of South Lake Tahoe Retirees Association v. City of South Lake Tahoe

18 Cited authorities

Holding that a “serious questions” version of the sliding scale approach to preliminary injunctions survives Winter

Holding that a permanent physical occupation constitutes a per se taking

Holding that the authorization under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 "extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary 'party in interest' to a transaction barred by [29 U.S.C. § 1106]"

Holding that levying Coal Act premiums on a pre-1978 signatory operator was an unconstitutional taking because the operator never agreed to provide lifetime benefits to its retirees

Holding plaintiff seeking injunction "not entitled to relief" in absence of showing "likelihood of irreparable harm"

Holding that however “rational the exercise of the bankruptcy power may be, that inquiry is quite separate from the question whether the enactment takes property within the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment”

Holding that city had not unreasonably delayed in filing suit, because it had commenced the action "less than two years after the earliest date any improper [pension] payments were made and well within any applicable statute of limitations"

Holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits uncompensated takings, but concluding that the court below made no errors of law in assessing just compensation

Concluding that on-call duty was not part of a normal workweek where the employee was only being compensated "at a small fraction of his base salary"

Recognizing the availability of a constructive trust to prevent dissipation of assets

Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

Naming person who "gains a thing by fraud, accident, mistake, undue influence, the violation of a trust, or other wrongful act" as an "involuntary trustee of the thing gained"

Limiting the availability of this provision to "a participant in a[n] [employer-provided] cafeteria plan"