§Why CasetextPricing

Hornback v. The United States of America

Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

6 Cited authorities

  1. Hornback v. United States

    Case No. 05cv2184 JM (AJB) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2006)

    Case No. 05cv2184 JM (AJB). March 7, 2006 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT JEFFREY MILLER, District Judge Plaintiff Alton Hornback moves for summary judgment. Defendant United States of America moves to dismiss the complaint for lack or jurisdiction or, alternatively, on res judicata grounds. All motions are opposed. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court

  2. Hornback v. United States

    127 F. App'x 964 (9th Cir. 2005)

    Submitted March 23, 2005. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3) Page 965. Alton Hornback, San Diego, CA, Pro se. Beth L. Levine, AUSA, USSD--Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant--Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding. Before B. FLETCHER

  3. Matter of Kopstein

    91 F.3d 152 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 4 times

    91 F.3d 152 (9th Cir. 1996) In re Emanuel KOPSTEIN, Debtor. Monty ELLISON, Creditor-Appellee, v. Emanuel KOPSTEIN, Debtor-Appellant. No. 94-16587. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit July 12, 1996 Editorial Note: This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions) Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District

  4. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 361,663 times   960 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  5. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 51,700 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  6. Section 183 - Right to compensation

    35 U.S.C. § 183   Cited 34 times   3 Legal Analyses

    An applicant, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, whose patent is withheld as herein provided, shall have the right, beginning at the date the applicant is notified that, except for such order, his application is otherwise in condition for allowance, or February 1, 1952, whichever is later, and ending six years after a patent is issued thereon, to apply to the head of any department or agency who caused the order to be issued for compensation for the damage caused by the order of secrecy