§Why CasetextPricing

Halliday v. Bioreference Laboratories Inc. et al

BRIEF in Opposition

37 Cited authorities

  1. Martin v. Franklin Capital

    546 U.S. 132 (2005)   Cited 4,849 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”

  2. Duncan v. Walker

    533 U.S. 167 (2001)   Cited 5,493 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendancy of a federal petition

  3. Gunn v. Minton

    568 U.S. 251 (2013)   Cited 2,725 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding insubstantial the federal question whether patent lawyers being sued for malpractice could have succeeded in a prior federal patent suit by timely raising a particular argument, because "[n]o matter how the state courts resolve that hypothetical ‘case within a case,’ it w[ould] not change the real-world result of the prior federal patent litigation. [Plaintiff's] patent w[ould] remain invalid."

  4. Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg.

    545 U.S. 308 (2005)   Cited 3,251 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction."

  5. TRW Inc. v. Andrews

    534 U.S. 19 (2001)   Cited 1,191 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding a cardinal principal of statutory interpretation is that “no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant”

  6. Milner v. Department of the Navy

    562 U.S. 2011 (2011)   Cited 716 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that FOIA exemptions are "explicitly made exclusive"

  7. U.S. v. Amer. Trucking Ass'ns

    310 U.S. 534 (1940)   Cited 1,666 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the purpose of the statute should be followed when the literal words would be at odds "with the policy of the legislation as a whole"

  8. Regions Hospital v. Shalala

    522 U.S. 448 (1998)   Cited 157 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that regulation was not impermissibly retroactive because it called for the "correct" application of existing reimbursement principles, "not the application of any new reimbursement principles"

  9. Dzwonar v. McDevitt

    177 N.J. 451 (N.J. 2003)   Cited 395 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding up Abbamont as an archetypal example of a factually supported CEPA claim

  10. Hitesman v. Bridgeway, Inc.

    218 N.J. 8 (N.J. 2014)   Cited 137 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of plaintiff's CEPA claim based on, among other things, the reliance by plaintiff, a registered nurse, on the professional code of ethics, the employee handbook, and the employer's statement of patient rights as standards governing patient care to demonstrate an objectively reasonable belief that the conduct of his employer, a nursing home, was incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy

  11. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 112,086 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 98,005 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  13. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 69,790 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  14. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 50,321 times   151 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”

  15. Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1447   Cited 33,295 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

  16. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 21,941 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  17. Section 651 - Congressional statement of findings and declaration of purpose and policy

    29 U.S.C. § 651   Cited 1,489 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Noting the OSH Act arose from concern surrounding "personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations"