TOCZAUER

v.

STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1974)
  …ndard allowance for part-time employment expenses); Williford v. Laupheimer, 311 F. Supp. 720 (ED Pa. 1969) (Pennsylvania $50 maximum allowance for work expenses); County of Alameda v. Carleson, 5 Cal. 3d 730, 488 P. 2d 953 (1971), appeal dismissed, 406 U. S. 913 (1972) (California work-expense regulation providing for standard deductions ranging from $6 to $25 per month). In X v. McCorkle, 333 F. Supp. 1109 (N. J. 1970), modified on other grounds, sub nom. Engelman v. Amos, 404 U. S. 23 (1971), the court…
• Cousins v. City Council OF the City OF Chicago, 466 F.2d 830 (7th Cir. 1972)
  …at case. . Or, of course, I may be wrong in rejecting the distinction between racial and political gerrymandering. See Judge Sprecher’s thoughtful opinion in Grivetti v. Illinois State Electoral Board, 335 F.Supp. 779, 789 (N.D.Ill.1971), affirmed, 406 U.S. 913, 92 S.Ct. 1772, 32 L.Ed. 2d 113 (1972). He wrote: “In the present state of federal reapportionment law, it is inconceivable that a state-sponsored plan with near-absolute equality could be considered constitutionally infirm, with the possible excep…
• United States ex rel. Lois Sero v. Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 1974)
  …on questions of law or fact, it is apparent that the complaint of the representative parties in this suit states a clear and unitary allegation on behalf of all young adult misdemeanants. Cf. Gesicki v. Oswald, 336 F.Supp. 371 (S.D.N.Y.1971), aff’d, 406 U.S. 913, 92 S.Ct. 1773, 32 L.Ed.2d 113 (1972). Although we are informed that the facilities at Bedford Hills differ from those at many of the other state correctional institutions, that factor is irrelevant to our purposes. This is so because the petition…