50 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 241,791 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Siegel v. Shell Oil Co.
612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 867 times
Holding that individualized inquiries regarding “why a particular plaintiff purchased a particular brand of [the product]” were necessary to establish harm to each class member under the ICFA and, thus, common issues could not predominate
Bausch v. Stryker Corp.
630 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 649 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that tort law claims based on manufacturing defects were not impliedly preempted
Mullins v. Direct Dig., LLC
795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) Cited 384 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's due process is implicated when the "calculation of each class member's damages affects the total amount of damages it owes to the class"
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc.
722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013) Cited 244 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a click through rate of 1.5% on Google Ads displaying allegedly infringing marks was insufficient to show initial-interest confusion and finding a higher rate of confusion from survey data to be insufficient evidence
Whitaker v. Milwaukee Cnty.
772 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2014) Cited 230 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "cannot consider" matters "outside the scope of EEOC charge"
Del Marcelle v. Brown Cnty. Corp.
680 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2012) Cited 236 times
Adopting standard that would require plaintiff to show, among other things "discriminatory intent and effect"
Cabrera v. Jakabovitz
24 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1994) Cited 313 times
Holding that, although a jury instruction that included the phrase " prima facie case" and referred to "defendant's `burden' of produc[tion]" "created a distinct risk of confusing the jury," in certain instances it would be appropriate to instruct the jury on the elements of a prima facie case
Minch v. City of Chicago
486 F.3d 294 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 207 times
Holding that although the complaint did not refer to the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the district court was entitled to consider it because its authenticity was not disputed and the plaintiffs' claim rested on its terms
Harris v. Itzhaki
183 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 251 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims for prospective relief had become moot, but that damage claim included in plaintiff’s initial prayer for relief was unaffected by Arizonans
Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
47 U.S.C. § 227 Cited 5,811 times 744 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

Birchmeier et al v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. et al

50 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that individualized inquiries regarding “why a particular plaintiff purchased a particular brand of [the product]” were necessary to establish harm to each class member under the ICFA and, thus, common issues could not predominate

Holding that tort law claims based on manufacturing defects were not impliedly preempted

Holding that a defendant's due process is implicated when the "calculation of each class member's damages affects the total amount of damages it owes to the class"

Holding a click through rate of 1.5% on Google Ads displaying allegedly infringing marks was insufficient to show initial-interest confusion and finding a higher rate of confusion from survey data to be insufficient evidence

Holding that courts "cannot consider" matters "outside the scope of EEOC charge"

Adopting standard that would require plaintiff to show, among other things "discriminatory intent and effect"

Holding that, although a jury instruction that included the phrase " prima facie case" and referred to "defendant's `burden' of produc[tion]" "created a distinct risk of confusing the jury," in certain instances it would be appropriate to instruct the jury on the elements of a prima facie case

Holding that although the complaint did not refer to the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the district court was entitled to consider it because its authenticity was not disputed and the plaintiffs' claim rested on its terms

Holding that claims for prospective relief had become moot, but that damage claim included in plaintiff’s initial prayer for relief was unaffected by Arizonans

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals