Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
01-4009
|
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton
District court has jurisdiction to decide whether Bureau of Land Management failed to comply with Federal Land Policy and Management Act. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jun. 21, 2004 | |
01-15901
|
Winn v. Killian
Federal court may review challenge to state law that provides tax credit for contributions that support parochial schools. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jun. 21, 2004 | |
01-56003
|
Altmann v. Republic of Austria
Facts alleged by heir of victim of Nazi art theft may establish taking in violation of international law that confers jurisdiction upon federal courts. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jun. 21, 2004 | |
B147332
|
Marriage of Goddard
Trial result is binding despite failure to introduce evidence that party had notice of trial. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Jun. 8, 2004 | |
02-1689
|
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group
Postfiling change in citizenship cannot cure lack of subject matter jurisdiction that existed at time of filing in diversity action. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 25, 2004 | |
E032557
|
Salazar v. Upland Police Dept.
Where there is evidence of lack of reasonable cause and good faith for continuing plaintiff's lawsuit, award of attorney fees was proper. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 21, 2004 | |
B166045
|
Nora v. Kaddo
Trial court erred in issuing mutual restraining orders without hearing testimony of witnesses offered by each party. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 21, 2004 | |
B169401
|
Castro v. Superior Court (California Savings)
Withdrawal of challenged lis pendens prior to hearing does not disqualify moving party from recovering attorney fees. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 21, 2004 | |
F040111
|
State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde)
State's demurrer was properly denied where plaintiff failed to plead he complied with requirements of Tort Claims Act. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 21, 2004 | |
C042750
|
People v. Osborn
Defendant who dredged under water for minerals is liable for substantially changing river bank. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 19, 2004 | |
01-36113
|
American Consumer Publishing Association Inc. v. Margosian
Abstention principles are properly invoked only when adjudicating claim for damages would directly interfere with pending state proceeding. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 19, 2004 | |
02-35116
|
Murphy v. Schneider National Inc.
Defendant's Rule 12(b)(3) motion was improperly granted because factual allegations were not resolved in plaintiff's favor. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 19, 2004 | |
02-35929
|
Farrell v. Principi
Plaintiff may proceed with civil action against agency because action seeks de novo review of claim, not enforcement of agency's final order. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 18, 2004 | |
01-36071
|
Alsea Valley Alliance v. Dept. of Commerce
Court lacks jurisdiction over appeal of remand order and intervention order because neither is final decision. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 18, 2004 | |
02-17022
|
PowerAgent Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
Plaintiff is bound by arbitrators' decision after it argued for arbitration of all claims. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 18, 2004 | |
03-15656
|
Smith v. Pacific Properties and Development Corp.
Disabled 'tester' and organization he represented both had standing to bring lawsuit against property owner for violating discrimination laws. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 18, 2004 | |
02-15687
|
Tritchler v. County of Lake
Federal court had jurisdiction to review state law claims of employment discrimination after federal claims had been dismissed. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 17, 2004 | |
03-6539
|
Johnson v. California
U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review decision of state supreme court to remand for further proceedings. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 12, 2004 | |
02-1657
|
Scarborough v. Principi
Attorney-fees application under Equal Access to Justice Act may be amended after deadline to allege government's position was not substantially justified. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 12, 2004 | |
02-55076
|
Retail Flooring Dealers of America Inc. v. Beaulieu of America
Court erred in awarding sanctions against plaintiff because defendant failed to comply with safe harbor provision. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 11, 2004 | |
01-17059
|
Churchill Village LLC v. General Electric
Settlement of class action lawsuit against manufacturer of consumer dishwashers is upheld. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 11, 2004 | |
02-56781
|
Kougasian v. TMSL Inc.
Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar subject matter jurisdiction when federal plaintiff alleges cause of action for extrinsic fraud against state court. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 7, 2004 | |
02-55340
|
United States v. Universal Fruits and Vegetables Corp.
District court lacks jurisdiction over action brought under False Claims Act regarding customs duties and antidumping tariffs. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 7, 2004 | |
03-863
|
Bunting v. Mellen
High court lacks jurisdiction to hear challenge regarding prayer at Virginia Military Institute. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 4, 2004 | |
03-15901
|
Bushley v. Credit Suisse First Boston
District court's order compelling arbitration in one forum but not in another forum is not appealable. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 4, 2004 | |
03-1201
|
Opinion of Lockyer
Physician who testifies as expert on applicable standard of care may not be found liable in subsequent action, but may be professionally disciplined. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 29, 2004 | |
02-55788
|
Special Investments Inc. v. Aero Air Inc.
Federal court's dismissal of defendant should have been vacated once court decided it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 26, 2004 | |
02-56278
|
United Investors Life Insurance Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc.
Federal appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review district court order remanding lawsuit to state court. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 25, 2004 | |
B159868
|
Smith v. M.D.
Absolute official proceedings privilege applies where child makes false statements of sexual abuse to caregivers and police. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2004 | |
A097117
|
Olmstead v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
Direct false response to discovery qualifies as 'misuse of the discovery process' subject to sanctions. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 25, 2004 |