Mathews v. Eldridge

Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"

Connecticut v. Doehr

Holding that "complete, physical, or permanent deprivation of real property" is not necessary to trigger due process protections

Hangarter v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co.

Holding a district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an insurance expert who testified on similar issues in twelve previous cases and had never been found unqualified

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HBE Corp.

Holding that exhibit was admissible under Rule 1006 because it was “straightforward and accurate, rather than argumentative or conclusory.”

Amato v. City of Saratoga Springs N.Y

Holding that the district court properly bifurcated the excessive force claims against police officers from claims against the city and the police department because a jury verdict in favor of the police officers would eliminate the need to litigate the issues against the city defendants

Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim

Holding trial court abused discretion in refusing to bifurcate trial where gang affiliation was relevant only to damages and not to liability

Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

Granting leave to replead rescission claim based on fraudulent inducement despite previous dismissal of fraud claim for failure to plead damages

Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp.

Holding that the statute of limitations was tolled until the breast implant recipient suspected or should have suspected that her autoimmune disease was caused by wrongdoing

City of Anaheim v. Estate of Diaz

O'Malley v. United States Fidelity Guar. Co.

Holding the district court, which was bound to apply Mississippi substantive law, did not abuse its discretion to hear claim of bad faith after determining there was no liability under the insurance policy, explaining that, under Mississippi law, "a recovery on the bad faith claim would not have been possible unless [the plaintiff] prevailed on his coverage claim."

Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."