59 Cited authorities

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
518 U.S. 415 (1996) Cited 2,325 times
Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)
Shady Grove Orthopedic v. Allstate Ins. Co.
559 U.S. 393 (2010) Cited 1,162 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding that rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
531 U.S. 497 (2001) Cited 1,368 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"
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
418 U.S. 323 (1974) Cited 3,885 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a private defamation plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages without proving actual malice
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) Cited 20,453 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues
Hanna v. Plumer
380 U.S. 460 (1965) Cited 3,181 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Herbert v. Lando
441 U.S. 153 (1979) Cited 1,589 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could "hardly be doubted" even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition
Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.
446 U.S. 740 (1980) Cited 872 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Oklahoma rules concerning service of process must be applied by federal courts adjudicating a dispute based on Oklahoma law
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps
475 U.S. 767 (1986) Cited 690 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where plaintiff is a private figure and newspaper articles are a matter of public concern, there is a "constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages"
Chamberlain v. Giampapa, M.D
210 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2000) Cited 1,650 times
Holding that default judgment was not warranted where the defendant answered late, but answered
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 348,310 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,940 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 Cited 109,400 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,128 times 1237 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"
Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 Cited 2,850 times 110 Legal Analyses
Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees
Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
28 U.S.C. § 2072 Cited 1,813 times 37 Legal Analyses
Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases
Section 2A:53A-26 - "Licensed person" defined
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-26 Cited 296 times 15 Legal Analyses
Listing as a "licensed person" "a physician in the practice of medicine or surgery"
Section 29-26-122 - Filing of certificate of good faith
Tenn. Code § 29-26-122 Cited 253 times 3 Legal Analyses
Stating that a defendant making comparative fault allegations against a non-party "shall file a certificate of good faith" within thirty days
Section 145.682 - CERTIFICATION OF EXPERT REVIEW; AFFIDAVIT
Minn. Stat. § 145.682 Cited 236 times
Stating that affidavit is required in any "cause of action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case"
Section 28-01-46 - Expert opinion required to maintain an action based upon alleged medical negligence except in obvious cases
N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-46 Cited 39 times
Requiring the submission of "an admissible expert opinion"

Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC et al

59 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)

Holding that rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"

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"

Holding that a private defamation plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages without proving actual malice

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072

Holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could "hardly be doubted" even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition

Holding that Oklahoma rules concerning service of process must be applied by federal courts adjudicating a dispute based on Oklahoma law

Holding that where plaintiff is a private figure and newspaper articles are a matter of public concern, there is a "constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages"

Holding that default judgment was not warranted where the defendant answered late, but answered

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"

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"

Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees

Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases

Listing as a "licensed person" "a physician in the practice of medicine or surgery"

Stating that a defendant making comparative fault allegations against a non-party "shall file a certificate of good faith" within thirty days

Stating that affidavit is required in any "cause of action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case"

Requiring the submission of "an admissible expert opinion"