32 Cited authorities

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 28,629 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
412 U.S. 218 (1973) Cited 11,972 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.
316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 4,890 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"
Bumper v. North Carolina
391 U.S. 543 (1968) Cited 2,825 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority “cannot be consent”
Camara v. Municipal Court
387 U.S. 523 (1967) Cited 2,921 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that "broad statutory safeguards are no substitute for individualized review, particularly when those safeguards may only be invoked at the risk of a criminal penalty"
Cheek v. United States
498 U.S. 192 (1991) Cited 1,075 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant in a criminal tax case can assert a defense of ignorance or misunderstanding of the tax law, leading to "a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws"
DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton
833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 2,901 times
Holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion to file fourth amended complaint
United States v. Monsanto
491 U.S. 600 (1989) Cited 481 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "strong governmental interest in obtaining full recovery of all forfeitable assets ... overrides any Sixth Amendment interest in permitting criminals to use [those assets] to pay for their defense" lest there be "interference with a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights whenever the Government freezes or takes some property in a defendant’s possession before, during, or after a criminal trial."
See v. City of Seattle
387 U.S. 541 (1967) Cited 911 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding the state cannot punish a business owner for refusing to authorize a warrantless administrative search of his commercial premises “not open to the public”
Bowles v. Reade
198 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 953 times
Holding that a plan participant cannot settle an ERISA § 502 claim without the plan’s consent
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,557 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 407 - Subsequent Remedial Measures
Fed. R. Evid. 407 Cited 1,401 times 13 Legal Analyses
Allowing for the exclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures

Brandi Garris et al v. City of Los Angeles

32 Cited authorities

Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search

Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"

Holding that acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority “cannot be consent”

Holding that "broad statutory safeguards are no substitute for individualized review, particularly when those safeguards may only be invoked at the risk of a criminal penalty"

Holding that a defendant in a criminal tax case can assert a defense of ignorance or misunderstanding of the tax law, leading to "a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws"

Holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion to file fourth amended complaint

Holding the state cannot punish a business owner for refusing to authorize a warrantless administrative search of his commercial premises “not open to the public”

Holding that a plan participant cannot settle an ERISA § 502 claim without the plan’s consent

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Allowing for the exclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures