22 Cited authorities

  1. Hazel v. U.S. Postmaster General

    7 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1993)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing elements of Title VII retaliation claim
  2. In re Crockett

    159 Cal.App.4th 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 21 times
    Holding a five-month delay was not unreasonable when an attorney “had no prior experience with appellate writs and could not obtain the assistance of experienced appellate counsel”
  3. Tomra of North America v. Environmental Products

    4 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Conn. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that the sale of products in interstate commerce made it reasonable for defendant to anticipate that some of them would be sold and marketed in Connecticut
  4. U.S. v. Mejia

    8 F.3d 3 (8th Cir. 1993)   Cited 10 times

    No. 93-2120. Submitted August 13, 1993. Decided September 30, 1993. Thomas M. Tuntland, Mandan, ND, argued, for appellant. Gary Annear, Fargo, ND, argued, for appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Before JOHN R. GIBSON, MAGILL, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Guadalupe Mejia, Jr., appeals his conviction for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). He argues that the evidence

  5. People v. Brooks

    189 Cal.App.3d 866 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 11 times

    Docket Nos. D003662, D004996. February 20, 1987. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. CR 72948, Barbara T. Gamer, Judge. COUNSEL Denise Moreno Ducheny for Defendant and Appellant and Petitioner. John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Frederick R. Millar, Jr., Jay M. Bloom, Maxine Cutler and David I. Friedenberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION WIENER, J. Joseph S. Brooks appeals from the judgment entered after he entered a negotiated guilty plea to unlawfully

  6. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hardware D. Mut. F.I

    196 So. 2d 650 (La. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 11 times
    In Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 196 So.2d 650 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1967), the appellate court reversed the sustaining of an exception of res judicata in a case where one insurer sued another insurer for costs in a subsequent action after the court held that the costs of the earlier suit in which both parties were defendants should be paid equally between them.
  7. Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Revenue

    34 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. 1948)   Cited 16 times

    Docket No. 13, Calendar No. 44,056. Decided October 4, 1948. Appeal from Ingham; Hayden (Charles H.), J. Submitted June 15, 1948. (Docket No. 13, Calendar No. 44,056.) Decided October 4, 1948. Bill by Roberts Tobacco Company, a Michigan corporation, against Department of Revenue to restrain furnishing a list of customers of plaintiff to anyone not in employ of defendant. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Monaghan, Clark, Crawmer Hart ( L. Edwin Wenger, of counsel), for plaintiff. Eugene

  8. Green v. Biddle

    21 U.S. 1 (1823)   Cited 165 times
    In Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, the legislative acts, which were successfully assailed, exempted the occupant of land from the payment of rents and profits to the rightful owner and were "parts of a system the object of which was to compel the rightful owner to relinquish his lands or pay for all lasting improvements made upon them, without his consent or default."
  9. United States v. Williams

    6 F.2d 13 (E.D. La. 1925)   Cited 7 times

    No. 17952. April 30, 1925. Ulic J. Burke and Jules A. Grasser, both of New Orleans, La., for relator. Robert H. Marr, Dist. Atty., of New Orleans, La., for respondent. Habeas Corpus. Petition by the United States, on relation of Hart Austin, alias Frank Smith, against George E. Williams and others, for writ of habeas corpus. Writ discharged. BEATTIE, District Judge. The relator petitioned for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus, alleging, among other things, that he was held and imprisoned by the

  10. Walbert v. State

    2 S.W.2d 17 (Ark. 1928)   Cited 2 times

    Opinion delivered February 6, 1928. 1. INTOXICATING LIQUOR — TRANSPORTATION. — Evidence held to warrant defendants' conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors. 2. CRIMINAL LAW — OPINIONS OF NONEXPERTS. — In a prosecution for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, testimony of officers that some of the defendants appeared to have been drinking, held admissible as testimony concerning a fact about which a nonexpert might express his conclusion and was not objectionable as mere

  11. Section 452 - Matters permitting judicial notice

    Cal. Evid. Code § 452   Cited 4,283 times

    Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state. (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive

  12. Section 14 - Repealed

    16 U.S.C. § 14   Cited 1 times

    16 U.S.C. § 14 Pub. L. 88-578, §2(a), Sept. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 899 Section, acts Mar. 7, 1928, ch. 137, §1, 45 Stat. 238; Mar. 4, 1929, ch. 705, §1, 45 Stat. 1602, prohibited expenditure of appropriations for National Park Service where campground privileges are charged for by the Park Service. EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPEAL Repeal effective Jan. 1, 1965, see section 1(a) of Pub. L. 88-578 set out in part as an Effective Date of 1964 Amendment note under section 460d of this title.

  13. Section 20 - Market reports

    7 U.S.C. § 20

    (a) Information The Commission may conduct regular investigations of the markets for goods, articles, services, rights, and interests which are the subject of futures contracts, and furnish reports of the findings of these investigations to the public on a regular basis. These market reports shall, where appropriate, include information on the supply, demand, prices, and other conditions in the United States and other countries with respect to such goods, articles, services, rights, interests, and

  14. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 349 times

    (a) Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits