Forget your password? Don't worry.
×Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.
United States Supreme Court | 398 U.S. 144 (1970)
In a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
United States Supreme Court | 521 U.S. 591 (1997)
A court considering certification of a class for the sole purpose of settlement does not need to determine whether certification would create significant management problems at the trial stage, but must still ensure that all the formal certification requirements of FRCP 23 are met.
American Lung Ass’n v. Reilly
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | 962 F.2d 258 (2d Cir. 1992)
To be properly joined under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 24, the moving party must fulfill all of the requirements listed in the rule.
American Nurses Association v. Illinois
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | 783 F.2d 716 (7th Cir. 1986)
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff cannot state a set of facts upon which relief may be granted.
Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-27
Court of Appeals for the District of Maine | 584 F.Supp.2d 240 (D. Me. 2008)
The heightened pleading standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), changes the application of Rule 12(b)(6), making the rule stronger.
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court
United States Supreme Court | 480 U.S. 102 (1987)
A foreign business' mere awareness that its products or services provided outside the United States would reach a forum state within the United States in the stream of commerce does not satisfy the minimum contacts needed to exercise jurisdiction over that foreign business.
Baker v. General Motors Corporation
United States Supreme Court | 522 U.S. 222 (1998)
The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require one state to enforce an injunction issued by another state, when this injunction impermissibly controls proceedings over which the first state has no authority.
Barcume v. City of Flint
Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Michigan | 819 F.Supp. 631 (E.D. Mich. 1993)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), the amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when the amended claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading, and therefore the amended pleading is not time barred by statute of limitations defenses.
Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover
United States Supreme Court | 359 U.S. 500 (1959)
When legal and equitable issues exist in the same trial, the legal issues must be first resolved by a jury before the equitable issues may be resolved by the judge.
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
United States Supreme Court | 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
To state a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act, the complaint must contain enough factual material to suggest that an agreement existed between the defendants.
Blair v. Equifax Check Services, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | 181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), a court of appeals may permit an appeal from a district court granting or denying class action certification if application is made to it within ten days after entry of the order.
Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell
Court of Appeals for the Southern District of New York | 16 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 87 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)
Under Federal .Rules of Civil Procedure 26, a party is entitled to discovery of information that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Brown v. Felsen
United States Supreme Court | 442 U.S. 127 (1979)
Res judicata does not bar the litigation of issues relating to fraud under § 17 of the Bankruptcy Act in bankruptcy court, even if similar state law issues of fraud could have been considered in a previous proceeding in state court.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
United States Supreme Court | 471 U.S. 462 (1985)
When determining if a defendant satisfies the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction, the court must look to the purposefully directed activities of the defendant toward the forum state and whether the harm arising or relating to those activities are the cause of the litigation.
Burnham v. Superior Court
United States Supreme Court | 495 U.S. 604 (1990)
A non-resident is properly served if he is physically present in the forum state, and the forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction over him without violating due process.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
United States Supreme Court | 499 U.S. 585 (1991)
Reasonable forum selection clauses are legally enforceable even if the clauses were not the product of negotiation between the corporation and the consumer.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis
United States Supreme Court | 519 U.S. 61 (1996)
If federal jurisdiction is proper at the time of the judgment, then a district court's error in prematurely removing a case from state court to federal court does not warrant vacating the verdict.
Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Louis H. Catrett, Deceased v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | 826 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
A showing in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is sufficient to avoid summary judgment if it would be adequate to carry the non-movant’s burden of proof at trial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
United States Supreme Court | 477 U.S. 317 (1986)
A party making a motion for summary judgment does not need to provide affirmative evidence in the form of affidavits to support its motion.
Chalick v. Cooper Hospital, et al.
United States District Court of New Jersey | 192 F.R.D. 145 (D.N.J. 2000)
Under Rule 26(a), a party must disclose the name, address, and telephone number of each person likely to have discoverable information, along with the subject of that information, or else the party may be subject to sanction.
