§Why CasetextPricing

The People of the State of New York by Andrew M. Cuomo,, Respondent,v.Maurice R. Greenberg, et al., Appellants.

Brief

162 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,115 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Fox v. Vice

    563 U.S. 826 (2011)   Cited 1,781 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts "may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time[, a]nd appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations"

  3. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

    518 U.S. 470 (1996)   Cited 2,416 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

  4. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,432 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

  5. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    505 U.S. 504 (1992)   Cited 2,401 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express warranty was not a "requirement ... imposed under State law" because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor

  6. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc.

    534 U.S. 279 (2002)   Cited 1,485 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private arbitration agreement between an employee and an employer could not bind a nonparty governmental agency, the EEOC, and thus that the agreement—which was enforceable against the employee under the Federal Arbitration Act—did not limit the types of remedies the agency could seek in an enforcement action it initiated under Title VII

  7. Carey v. Piphus

    435 U.S. 247 (1978)   Cited 3,570 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that nominal damages are appropriate when a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been infringed but he cannot show further injury

  8. Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    531 U.S. 497 (2001)   Cited 1,356 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "claim-preclusive effect" of a previous decision by a federal court sitting in diversity is governed by "the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits"

  9. Ernst Ernst v. Hochfelder

    425 U.S. 185 (1976)   Cited 3,484 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 9(f) “contains a state-of-mind condition requiring something more than negligence”

  10. Nevada v. Bank of America Corp.

    672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 2,976 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state "has a specific, concrete interest in eliminating any deceptive practices that may have contributed to" a housing crisis

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,902 times   1234 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

  12. Section 77q - Fraudulent interstate transactions

    15 U.S.C. § 77q   Cited 3,299 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the use of "any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud" in connection with the offer or sale of any security

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

    15 U.S.C. § 77k   Cited 2,113 times   85 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 78a - Short title

    15 U.S.C. § 78a   Cited 1,723 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing considerations of federalism in SLUSA's legislative findings

  15. Section 1715 - Notifications to appropriate Federal and State officials

    28 U.S.C. § 1715   Cited 1,224 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Providing list of information required to be included with the CAFA notice

  16. Section 78bb - Effect on existing law

    15 U.S.C. § 78bb   Cited 906 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933

  17. Section 77l - Civil liabilities arising in connection with prospectuses and communications

    15 U.S.C. § 77l   Cited 823 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing relief if the offering documents contain just one untrue statement of material fact

  18. Section 77p - Additional remedies; limitation on remedies

    15 U.S.C. § 77p   Cited 449 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing certain securities class actions to be removed to federal court

  19. Section 1711 - Definitions

    28 U.S.C. § 1711   Cited 239 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Defining other terms but not defining "coupon"

  20. Section 77r - Exemption from State regulation of securities offerings

    15 U.S.C. § 77r   Cited 201 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing state authority to regulate offerings of securities that are completely intra-state

  21. Section 240.14a-9 - False or misleading statements

    17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9   Cited 599 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a proxy statement shall not "contain any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading"