Broer v. Mann

5 Citing cases

  1. Destec Energy v. Southern Ca. Gas Co.

    5 F. Supp. 2d 433 (S.D. Tex. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that the plaintiffs could not sustain a claim under the Texas antitrust statute because there was no showing that Texas consumers suffered any adverse effects from conduct at issue

    The courts have consistently recognized that the California legislation creating the CPUC regulatory structure constitutes a policy of displacing competition with regulation in natural gas transportation. See, e.g., Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P., 981 F.2d at 435; City of Vernon v. Southern Cal. Gas Co., 92 F.3d 1191, 1996 WL 138554, at *2 (9th Cir. 1996); Transphase Sys., Inc. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 839 F. Supp. 711, 715-16 (C.D.Cal. 1993); Norcen Energy Resource v. Pacific Gas Elec. Co., 1994 WL 519461, at *9 (N.D.Cal. 1994). In 1988, California had a policy of displacing competition by regulation in the intrastate market for natural gas.

  2. California First Amendment Coal. v. Woodford

    299 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that the first Turner factor was not satisfied in part because a justification given for the prison regulation in issue was purely speculative

    We affirmed the preliminary injunction in an unpublished memorandum disposition. Cal. First Amend. Coalition v. Calderon, 92 F.3d 1191, 1996 WL 442471 (9th Cir. Aug.5, 1996) (" Cal. First Amend. I"). The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and entered a slightly broader permanent injunction, directing defendants to "allow the witnesses to executions by lethal injection to view the procedure at least from the point in time just prior to the condemned being immobilized, that is[,] strapped to the gurney or other apparatus of death, until the point in time just after the prisoner dies."

  3. California First Amendment Coalition v. Woodford

    No. 00-16752 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2001)

    We affirmed the preliminary injunction in an unpublished memorandum disposition.Cal. First Amend. Coalition v. Calderon, 92 F.3d 1191, 1996 WL 442471 (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 1996) ("Cal. First Amend. I").

  4. Hous. Cas. Co. v. Cibus U.S. LLC

    19cv828-JO-DDL (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    . of Calif. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Auth. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 1996).

  5. Snyder v. Snyder

    Civil No. 063072 (DSD/JJG) (D. Minn. Mar. 21, 2007)   Cited 6 times
    Posting a warrant and transferring information by fax to forum state did not create personal jurisdiction

    The remaining libel per se and release of information claims plaintiff alleges are not cognizable under ยง 1983. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 694, 708-09 (1976) (defamation); Broer v. Mann, 92 F.3d 1191, 1191 (9th Cir. 1996); Jarvis v. Wellman, 52 F.3d 125, 126 (6th Cir. 1995) (release of information). The purported defamation did not deprive plaintiff of any liberty or property interests protected by the Due Process Clause.