15 Cited authorities

Hudson v. Palmer
468 U.S. 517 (1984) Cited 12,383 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy
Parratt v. Taylor
451 U.S. 527 (1981) Cited 10,695 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a negligent prison official, in mishandling and losing a prisoner's mail, had effectuated a due process violation, but that the state's availability of a postdeprivation tort remedy cured the violation
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board
527 U.S. 666 (1999) Cited 1,662 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no fundamental property right in "the activity of doing business, or the activity of making a profit"
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
427 U.S. 445 (1976) Cited 1,638 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that state sovereign immunity is necessarily limited by the enforcement provision of the Fourteenth Amendment
West Virginia v. United States
479 U.S. 305 (1987) Cited 378 times
Affirming remand by the Fourth Circuit for an award of such prejudgment interest as the district court deemed reasonable
Grosjean v. American Press Co.
297 U.S. 233 (1936) Cited 678 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding unconstitutional a tax singling out newspapers with weekly circulations above 20,000
A123 Systems, Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec
626 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 42 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that absent patentee was an indispensable party when the named party had “overlapping” but not “identical” interests
Becher v. Contoure Laboratories
279 U.S. 388 (1929) Cited 137 times
In Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., 279 U.S. 388 (1929) (cited in Marrese, 470 U.S., at 381), we held that state court findings of fact were issue preclusive in federal patent suits.
Biomedical v. California
505 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 36 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state did not waive sovereign immunity when it intervened in a past, related action
Edwards v. Gramling Engineering Corp.
322 Md. 535 (Md. 1991) Cited 29 times
Applying Maryland law and stating, "[e]quity creates [a constructive trust] where a person holding title to a property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another person on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it"
Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
28 U.S.C. § 1338 Cited 5,398 times 71 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

ArrivalStar S.A. et al v. Maryland Transit Administration

15 Cited authorities

Holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy

Holding that a negligent prison official, in mishandling and losing a prisoner's mail, had effectuated a due process violation, but that the state's availability of a postdeprivation tort remedy cured the violation

Holding there is no fundamental property right in "the activity of doing business, or the activity of making a profit"

Holding that state sovereign immunity is necessarily limited by the enforcement provision of the Fourteenth Amendment

Affirming remand by the Fourth Circuit for an award of such prejudgment interest as the district court deemed reasonable

Holding unconstitutional a tax singling out newspapers with weekly circulations above 20,000

Holding that absent patentee was an indispensable party when the named party had “overlapping” but not “identical” interests

In Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., 279 U.S. 388 (1929) (cited in Marrese, 470 U.S., at 381), we held that state court findings of fact were issue preclusive in federal patent suits.

Holding that a state did not waive sovereign immunity when it intervened in a past, related action

Applying Maryland law and stating, "[e]quity creates [a constructive trust] where a person holding title to a property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another person on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it"

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"