⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “Rodriguez v. Pacific Steel Casting Company”

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2017-07-12 · Published · cited 9× · 863 F.3d 816
SMITH, Circuit Judge, When Congress expressly delegates rulemaking authority in a regulatory sphere to one agency, and that delegation is declared unconstitutional, may a different agency provide regulatory guidance in the same sphere on its own initiative? The Surface Transportation Board (“Board”) said yes—and on that basis it promulgated a rule defining “on-time performance” under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improveme
District Court, S.D. California · 2015-02-10 · Published · cited 18× · 305 F.R.D. 197; 90 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1661; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16180; 2015 WL 546024
ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. The plaintiffs, hourly workers, move for class certification against their current and former employers. Pis.’ Mot. Class Cert., ECF No. 56.1 Three defendants, Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc. (TFP), Abel Mendoza, Inc. (AMI), and SlingShot Connections, LLC (SlingShot), oppose their motion. Def. TFP’s Opp’n Class Cert. (TFP Opp’n), E
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007-04-02 · Published · cited 0×
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA  AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner, No. 04-76132 v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS  N.L.R.B. No. 31-CA-26120 BOARD, Respondent, OPINION TOWER INDUSTRIES, INC.,
California Supreme Court · 1974-08-21 · Published · cited 214× · 525 P.2d 669; 12 Cal. 3d 382; 115 Cal. Rptr. 765; 1974 Cal. LEXIS 234
12 Cal.3d 382 (1974) 525 P.2d 669 115 Cal. Rptr. 765 MARY ANNE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. L.A. 30271. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. August 21, 1974. *385 COUNSEL Ned Good for Plaint
District Court, N.D. California · 2014-11-10 · Published · cited 2× · 73 F. Supp. 3d 1206; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158609; 2014 WL 5847604
*1209ORDER GRANTING BESSER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Re: ECF No. 71] LAUREL BEELER, United States Magistrate Judge INTRODUCTION In this action, several entities sued each other after a mierotunnel boring machine broke down while it was boring an underground tunnel on a construction project for the San F
Oregon Supreme Court · 2010-04-15 · Published · cited 32× · 230 P.3d 518; 348 Or. 159
*161KISTLER, J. The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act authorizes persons holding a registry identification card to use marijuana for medical purposes. ORS 475.306(1). It also exempts those persons from state criminal liability for manufacturing, delivering, and possessing marijuana, provided that certain conditions are met. ORS 475.309(1). The Federal Controlled Substances A
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · 2015-12-18 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 01-15-00478-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/18
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985-11-13 · Published · cited 238× · 777 F.2d 113; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 490; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23983; 38 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 35,719; 39 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 658
OPINION OF THE COURT WEIS, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the grant of injunctive relief and liability findings in a wide-ranging employment discrimination class action. We conclude that: (1) the same period of limitations applies in § 1981 claims as in those under § 1983; (2) class representatives who were not discriminated against in initial work assignments may not represent those who were; (3) on re
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007-04-02 · Published · cited 9× · 482 F.3d 1112; 181 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2748; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7559
GRABER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner United Steelworkers of Amer-ica (“the Union”) alleged unfair labor practices by Intervenor Tower Industries, Inc. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that Tower had violated 29 U.S.C. § 158 and recommended several specific affirmative remedies, including an order requiring Tower to recognize and bargain with the Union, commonly known as
Rodriguez v. Taylorpublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977-12-27 · Published · cited 278× · 569 F.2d 1231
OPINION OF THE COURT VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge. This appeal raises diverse issues resulting from a district court award of back pay, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff who successfully proved that the City of Philadelphia violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1970 & Supp. IV 1974) (ADEA). We affirm in part and reverse in part the district
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · 2015-09-11 · Published · cited 0×
FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD
California Court of Appeal · 1975-07-21 · Published · cited 15× · 50 Cal. App. 3d 37; 123 Cal. Rptr. 216; 40 Cal. Comp. Cases 974; 1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1277
Opinion FRIEDMAN, J. On April 28, 1973, a trainload of military bombs carried by a Southern Pacific freight train detonated in the railroad’s freight yards at Roseville. A series of violent explosions occurred, causing damage throughout the neighborhood. Twenty-four plaintiffs *39filed this damage action against Southern Pacific Transportation Company, th
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974-11-25 · Published · cited 24× · 505 F.2d 40; 8 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1246; 19 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 661; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5908; 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 9811
WISDOM, Circuit Judge: In this employment discrimination case the plaintiffs-appellants attack two ubiquitous practices in the trucking industry: (1) the trucking companies’ requirement that “city drivers” resign from their city driver jobs before applying for the more lucrative and sought-after “road” or “line driver” * positions, and (2) the companies’ rule preventing city drivers from carrying
The United States v. Fischbach and Moore, Inc., the Howard P. Foley Company, Lord Electric Company, Inc., Sargent Electric Company, E.C. Ernst, Inc., Tri-City Electric Company, Inc., Joseph J. Rodgers, Paul E. Arbogast, Frederic B. Sargent, Ralph D. Vryenhoek, James L. Oesterle. Appeal of Sargent Electric Company. The United States v. Fischbach and Moore, Inc., the Howard P. Foley Company, Lord Electric Company, Inc., Sargent Electric Company, E.C. Ernst, Inc., Tri-City Electric Company, Inc., Joseph J. Rodgers, Paul E. Arbogast, Frederic B. Sargent, Ralph D. Vryenhoek, James L. Oesterle. Appeal of Frederic B. Sargent. The United States v. Fischbach and Moore, Inc., the Howard P. Foley Company, Lord Electric Company, Inc., Sargent Electric Company, E.C. Ernst, Inc., Tri-City Electric Company, Inc., Joseph J. Rodgers, Paul E. Arbogast, Frederic B. Sargent, Ralph D. Vryenhoek, James L. Oesterle. Appeal of Ralph D. Vryenhoek. The United States v. Fischbach and Moore, Inc., the Howard P. Foley Company, Lord Electric Company, Inc., Sargent Electric Company, E.C. Ernst, Inc., Tri-City Electric Company, Inc., Joseph J. Rodgers, Paul E. Arbogast, Frederic B. Sargent, Ralph D. Vryenhoek, James L. Oesterle. Appeal of Paul E. Arbogast. The United States v. Fischbach and Moore, Inc., the Howard P. Foley Company, Lord Electric Company, Inc., Sargent Electric Company, E.C. Ernst, Inc., Tri-City Electric Company, Inc., Joseph J. Rodgers, Paul E. Arbogast, Frederic B. Sargent, Ralph D. Vryenhoek, James L. Oesterle. Appeal of Joseph J. Rodgers. The United States v. Fischbach and Moore, Inc., the Howard P. Foley Company, Lord Electric Company, Inc., Sargent Electric Company, E.C. Ernst, Inc., Tri-City Electric Company, Inc., Joseph J. Rodgers, Paul E. Arbogast, Frederic B. Sargent, Ralph D. Vryenhoek, James L. Oesterle. Appeal of Lord Electric Company. The United States v. Fischbach and Moore, Inc., the Howard P. Foley Company, Lord Electric Company, Inc., Sargent Electric Company, E.C. Ernst, Inc., Tri-City Electric Company, Inc., Joseph J. Rodgers, Paul E. Arbogast, Frederic B. Sargent, Ralph D. Vryenhoek, James L. Oesterle. Appeal of Fischbach and Moore, Incorporatedpublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985-03-04 · Published · cited 59× · 750 F.2d 1183
750 F.2d 1183 1984-2 Trade Cases 66,310, 17 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 349 The UNITED STATESv.FISCHBACH AND MOORE, INC., the Howard P. Foley Company, LordElectric Company, Inc., Sargent Electric Company, E.C.Ernst, Inc., Tri-City Electric Company, Inc., Joseph J.Rodgers, Paul E. Arbogast, Frederic B. Sargent, Ralph D.Vryenhoek, James L. Oesterle.Appeal of SARGENT ELECTRIC COMPANY.The UNITED ST
District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1975-03-19 · Published · cited 7× · 394 F. Supp. 434; 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13283; 13 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 908
394 F.Supp. 434 (1975) Patrick JAMES et al., Plaintiffs, v. STOCKHAM VALVES AND FITTINGS COMPANY, a corporation, and Local No. 3036, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 70-G-178-S. United States District Court, N. D. Alabama, S. D. March 19, 1975. *435 *436
Supreme Court of the United States · 1942-02-16 · Published · cited 121× · 315 U.S. 289; 62 S. Ct. 581; 86 L. Ed. 855; 1942 U.S. LEXIS 1054
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, dissenting: The Founders divided our government into three branches, partly to prevent autocratic concentration of power and partly to achieve appropriate division of labor in the difficult task of government. The President has his duties, the Congress its duties, and we ours. What powers the Congress should give the President in order to obtain the most effective production of war suppl
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977-03-17 · Published · cited 289× · 546 F.2d 84
WISDOM, Circuit Judge: Southwest Airlines Co. has returned to the federal courts for the second time in *87 two years to preserve a 1973 judgment in a federal district court. The recurring litigation concerns Southwest’s right to continue its air passenger services at Love Field in Dallas, Texas, and