Forget your password? Don't worry.
×Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida | 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (2002)
In order to properly state a claim, the plaintiff must bring a suit that is covered by the statute referenced in the complaint.
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.
Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hospital and Training School for Nurses
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | 622 F.2d 496 (1980)
A party is not required to divulge the identity and opinions of expert witnesses whose testimony it does not intend to present or whom it does not ultimately hire.
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 Life Insurance Co. v. Stewart
United States Supreme Court | 300 U.S. 203 (1937)
The existence of a remedy at law excludes the use of a remedy in equity only if the remedy at law is as efficient as the remedy in equity.
Anderson v. Bessemer City
United States Supreme Court | 470 U.S. 564 (1985)
Findings of fact cannot be set aside unless clearly erroneous, where, although there is evidence to support the finding, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Arnstein v. Porter
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | 154 F.2d 464 (1946)
Summary judgment is inappropriate when a case’s resolution depends on the credibility given to a particular witness’s testimony.
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.
Atlantis Development Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 379 F.2d 818 (1967)
A party not originally part of the lawsuit may intervene as a matter of right if its interests lack representation by the current parties to the case and if the results of the litigation would practically impair the intervenor’s rights.
Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
United States Supreme Court | 430 U.S. 442 (1977)
Congress can create a cause of action in which the fact finder is not a jury without violating the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw
United States Supreme Court | 486 U.S. 71 (1988)
A constitutional claim must be clearly raised in the litigation below before it can be heard by a federal court of appeals.
Banks v. City of Emeryville
United States District Court for the Northern District of California | 109 F.R.D. 535 (N.D. Cal. 1985)
If a state law permits indemnification or contribution recovery in a third party complaint, then a third party plaintiff may seek indemnification and contribution from a third party defendant relying on that state law.
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.
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | 126 F.3d 25 (1997)
When determining whether a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a given plaintiff in a diversity or federal question case, the long arm statute of the forum state dictates whether jurisdiction exists.
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.
Bustop v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal | 69 Cal. App. 3d 66 (1977)
A party may intervene in an action if a party that purports to represent them is not accurately representing the interests of its members.
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative
United States Supreme Court | 356 U.S. 525 (1958)
The federal policy of having the jury answer questions of fact prevails over state rules that would interrupt the judge-jury relationship in federal court.
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.
