§Why CasetextPricing

In Re Snap Inc. Securities Litigation

OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify an Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292

24 Cited authorities

  1. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,558 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

  2. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca

    480 U.S. 421 (1987)   Cited 2,395 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous

  3. Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay

    437 U.S. 463 (1978)   Cited 2,817 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding interlocutory orders appealable if they: "conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."

  4. Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States

    406 U.S. 128 (1972)   Cited 1,627 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

  5. Couch v. Telescope Inc.

    611 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 443 times
    Holding that "single, non-binding, advisory opinion by a division of California Attorney General's office is not 'substantial' ground for disagreement as to the controlling law."

  6. In re Cement Antitr. Litigation

    673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 632 times
    Holding that interlocutory appeal is only justified under "exceptional circumstances."

  7. James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc.

    283 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 324 times
    Holding that, "when a party that has suffered an adverse partial judgment subsequently dismisses remaining claims without prejudice with the approval of the district court, and the record reveals no evidence of intent to manipulate our appellate jurisdiction, the judgment entered after the district court grants the motion to dismiss is final and appealable"

  8. In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation

    35 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 350 times
    Holding that the bespeaks caution doctrine applies when the defendants' forward-looking representations contain sufficient cautionary language

  9. White v. Nix

    43 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 334 times
    Holding that even when "the parties did not raise any jurisdictional issues court is obligated to raise such jurisdictional issues if it perceives any"

  10. McMahan Co. v. Wherehouse Entertainment

    65 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 108 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a no-action clause cannot bar a securities claim because of express contrary language in the 1933 and 1934 acts

  11. Section 1291 - Final decisions of district courts

    28 U.S.C. § 1291   Cited 89,036 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"

  12. Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions

    28 U.S.C. § 1292   Cited 22,354 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders

  13. Section 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement

    15 U.S.C. § 77k   Cited 2,113 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing

  14. Section 77 - Discrimination against neutral Americans in time of war

    15 U.S.C. § 77   Cited 1,801 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Granting right of recovery to " any person acquiring such security (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission)"