122 Cited authorities

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (1989) Cited 55,792 times
Holding that "an in forma pauperis pro se complaint may only be dismissed as frivolous ... when the petitioner cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in law or in fact"
Hishon v. King Spalding
467 U.S. 69 (1984) Cited 12,436 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding Title VII applies to selection for non-employee positions if consideration for that position can be regarded as one of "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" of a covered job
Adickes v. Kress Co.
398 U.S. 144 (1970) Cited 25,043 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a private person who conspires with government actors to deprive a plaintiff of her constitutional rights acts "under color of law" for purposes of § 1983
Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 58,508 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
519 U.S. 337 (1997) Cited 2,472 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders
437 U.S. 340 (1978) Cited 4,393 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.
482 U.S. 437 (1987) Cited 2,688 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that expert witness fees are not available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) because "when a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a federal court is bound by the limit of § 1821(b), absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the contrary"
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
542 U.S. 692 (2004) Cited 1,167 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that no "private cause of action" had been Congressionally authorized, and thus, plaintiff was "not entitled to a remedy"
Baker v. Carr
369 U.S. 186 (1962) Cited 5,229 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"
Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.
534 U.S. 438 (2002) Cited 838 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that where Congress has listed some categories of people as to successor liability under 26 U.S.C. § 9706, those not included in the list are not liable because Congress could have included them "clearly and explicitly"
Section 1602 - Findings and declaration of purpose
28 U.S.C. § 1602 Cited 1,439 times 16 Legal Analyses
Setting forth Congressional findings and the purposes of FSIA
Section 1350 - Alien's action for tort
28 U.S.C. § 1350 Cited 1,164 times 64 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts jurisdiction over "any civil action . . . for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations"
Section 2331 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 2331 Cited 335 times 13 Legal Analyses
Defining "international terrorism" to include activities that would violate the criminal laws of the United States or any State and that, inter alia , "involve violence or endanger human life" and "appear to be intended" to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government

BELHAS et al v. YA'ALON

122 Cited authorities

Holding that "an in forma pauperis pro se complaint may only be dismissed as frivolous ... when the petitioner cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in law or in fact"

Holding Title VII applies to selection for non-employee positions if consideration for that position can be regarded as one of "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" of a covered job

Holding that a private person who conspires with government actors to deprive a plaintiff of her constitutional rights acts "under color of law" for purposes of § 1983

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Holding that the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII

Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

Holding that no "private cause of action" had been Congressionally authorized, and thus, plaintiff was "not entitled to a remedy"

Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"

Holding that where Congress has listed some categories of people as to successor liability under 26 U.S.C. § 9706, those not included in the list are not liable because Congress could have included them "clearly and explicitly"

Setting forth Congressional findings and the purposes of FSIA

Granting district courts jurisdiction over "any civil action . . . for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations"

Defining "international terrorism" to include activities that would violate the criminal laws of the United States or any State and that, inter alia , "involve violence or endanger human life" and "appear to be intended" to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government