§Why CasetextPricing

Barnstable, Town of et al v. Berwick et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 41 MOTION to Dismiss

100 Cited authorities

  1. Taylor v. Sturgell

    553 U.S. 880 (2008)   Cited 3,187 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that adequate representation requires that "[t]he interests of the nonparty and her representative are aligned" and "the party understood herself to be acting in a representative capacity."

  2. Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno

    547 U.S. 332 (2006)   Cited 2,681 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an injury a plaintiff "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally" is not a cognizable injury-in-fact

  3. Bennett v. Spear

    520 U.S. 154 (1997)   Cited 3,704 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Final Biological Opinion has "legal consequences," even though the action agency is not legally obligated to accept the opinion's recommendations or conclusions, because the opinion "alter the legal regime to which the action agency is subject"

  4. Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission

    535 U.S. 635 (2002)   Cited 2,206 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "even if [47 U. S. C] § 252(e) does not confer jurisdiction, it at least does not divest the district courts of their authority under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 to review the Commission's order for compliance with federal law"

  5. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    517 U.S. 706 (1996)   Cited 2,590 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an abstention-based remand is not a remand for “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” for purposes of §§ 1447(c) and (d)

  6. Staub v. Proctor Hosp.

    562 U.S. 411 (2011)   Cited 1,352 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a person who "did not intend to cause dismissal" cannot be deemed "responsible" for the dismissal, even if the dismissal was the "result" or "foreseeable consequence" of the person's actions

  7. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

    463 U.S. 85 (1983)   Cited 3,520 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans

  8. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. New Orleans

    491 U.S. 350 (1989)   Cited 2,010 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Burford abstention is not appropriate where the plaintiff's claim "does not involve a state-law claim," and rejecting the Fifth Circuit's declaration that "`the absence of a state law claim [is] not fatal'" to the application of Burford abstention

  9. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

    387 U.S. 136 (1967)   Cited 5,295 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"

  10. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,188 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 489,827 times   693 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,914 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. Section 824d - Rates and charges; schedules; suspension of new rates; automatic adjustment clauses

    16 U.S.C. § 824d   Cited 525 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting a utility from "grant [ing] any undue preference or advantage" or "subject[ing] any person to any undue prejudice or disadvantage"

  14. Section 824 - Declaration of policy; application of subchapter

    16 U.S.C. § 824   Cited 495 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Granting FERC authority over wholesale generation and transmission

  15. Section 824e - Power of Commission to fix rates and charges; determination of cost of production or transmission

    16 U.S.C. § 824e   Cited 290 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Permitting complaints alleging unjust and unreasonable rates

  16. Section 25:5 - Rulings; orders; appeal; costs; staying enforcement; burden of proof; evidence

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 25 § 5   Cited 57 times

    When so requested by any party interested, the commission shall rule upon any question of substantive law properly arising in the course of any proceeding before the commission or any member or members thereof, and any party interested aggrieved by such ruling may object thereto, and may secure a review as hereinafter provided. Any failure or refusal of the commission to rule upon such question at or prior to the entry of a final order or decision shall be taken and recorded as a ruling adverse to