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.
10 opinions for “United States v. Pereyda”
Fisher v. State Pers. Bd.public domain
HOCH, J. *4While serving as an administrative law judge for the State Personnel Board (SPB), Richard Paul Fisher joined the law firm of Simas & Associates as "of counsel." Simas & Associates specialized in representing clients facing administrative actions, including those heard by the SPB. Indeed, the Simas law firm represented a CalTrans em
People v. Molnarpublic domain
—Judgment affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that the warrantless entry into defendant’s apartment by the police in response to a foul odor emanating from it was justified under the emergency exception to the search warrant requirement (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, cert denied 426 US 953; see also, Mincey v Arizona, 437 US 385, 392-393). A tenant in the building called 911 to report a foul odo
Fisher v. State Personnel Bd.public domain
Filed 6/11/18; pub. & mod. order 7/6/18 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- RICHARD PAUL FISHER, Plaintiff and Appellant, C081957 v. (Super. Ct. No.
Noguera v. Davispublic domain
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, United States District Judge I. BACKGROUND Petitioner William A. Noguera is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, Orange County, following his April 29, 1987 conviction of the first-degree murder (
California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Boardpublic domain
128 Cal.Rptr.2d 514 (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575 CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; v. Randy Henderson, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. No. C036202. Court of Appeal, Third District. December 18, 2002. *516 Howard Schwartz, Piedmont, an
Norris v. State Personnel Boardpublic domain
174 Cal.App.3d 393 (1985) 219 Cal. Rptr. 895 ALAN NORRIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD et al., Defendants and Appellants; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Docket No. 24513. Court of Appeals of California, Third District. October 15, 1985. *394 COUNSEL<
Flowers v. State Personnel Boardpublic domain
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 755 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 756 OPINION The Department of Corrections (Department) dismissed appellant Steven V. Flowers from his civil
Washington v. State Personnel Boardpublic domain
127 Cal.App.3d 636 (1981) 179 Cal. Rptr. 637 COLLIE N. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. Docket No. 19078. Court of Appeals of California, Third District. December 17, 1981.
People v. Simspublic domain
Opinion BIRD, C. J. This case presents questions that arise when a welfare recipient who has been exonerated of fraud charges in an administrative *473hearing conducted by the Department of Social Services is subsequently prosecuted in a criminal proceeding for the same alleged misconduct. The most significant issue is whether the doctrine of collatera
Long v. State Personnel Boardpublic domain
41 Cal.App.3d 1000 (1974) 116 Cal. Rptr. 562 LOUISE LONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. 14303. Court of Appeals of California, Third District. September 24, 1974. *1002 COUNSEL Turner & Sullivan, Robert J. Sullivan, Loren E. McMaster and