547 U.S. 71 (2006) Cited 671 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law class action securities fraud claims brought by “holders” of securities are, just like those of “purchasers” and “sellers,” preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
504 U.S. 298 (1992) Cited 568 times 157 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[i]n 'modern commercial life' it matters little that . . . solicitation is accomplished by a deluge of catalogs rather than a phalanx of drummers," that the "requirements of due process are met irrespective of a corporation's lack of physical presence in the taxing State," and that due process therefore permits "the imposition of collection duty on a mail-order house that is engaged in continuous and widespread solicitation of business within a State"
457 U.S. 624 (1982) Cited 771 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs
571 U.S. 161 (2014) Cited 219 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the ‘100 or more persons’ referred to in the statute are ... the very ‘plaintiffs’ referred to later in the sentence" and that the word "plaintiffs" means "the actual named parties who bring an action"
481 U.S. 69 (1987) Cited 382 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding Indiana statute regulating acquisition of corporation stock did not merit heightened scrutiny because it had “same effects on tender offers whether or not the offeror is a domiciliary or resident of Indiana”
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5780 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 203 times
Holding that, when determining whether to apply res judicata to non-parties, courts “must determine whether the severe consequences of preclusion flowing from a finding of privity strike a fair result under the circumstances”
N.Y. Exec. Law § 63 Cited 771 times 39 Legal Analyses
Specifying that in such circumstances the Attorney General or her deputy will exercise the powers the district attorney “would otherwise” hold, and the district attorney is limited to “exercise[ing] such powers . . . as are required of him by the attorney-general or the deputy attorney-general so attending”