§Why CasetextPricing

Blue Gentian, Llc v. Tristar Products, Inc.

BRIEF in Opposition

8 Cited authorities

  1. Hilton v. Braunskill

    481 U.S. 770 (1987)   Cited 2,978 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if the State makes a substantial case on the merits, continued custody is permissible if the second and fourth factors "militate against release"

  2. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,263 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"

  3. Westinghouse v. Republic of the Phil.

    951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991)   Cited 506 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding mandamus available to review order compelling production of documents claimed to be privileged but unavailable to review order upholding work-product doctrine

  4. Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec

    949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. 1991)   Cited 310 times
    Holding that a party that "failed to offer evidence . . . to substantiate its claim that disclosure . . . would result in any type of competitive disadvantage," did not meet the burden to seal documents

  5. Bechtel Corp. v. Loc. 215, Laborers' Int'l U

    544 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1976)   Cited 253 times
    Affirming stay in deference to the trial court's discretionary power to grant a stay

  6. United States v. Waterman

    755 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2014)   Cited 34 times
    Affirming application of § 2J1.2(b) enhancement based on the defendant’s destruction of a hard drive, which "resulted in the early termination of [an] FBI investigation"

  7. Haas v. Burlington Cnty.

    955 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D.N.J. 2013)   Cited 10 times

    Civil Nos. 08–1102 10–009 (NLH/JS). 2013-06-30 Tammy Marie HAAS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. BURLINGTON COUNTY, Defendant. Conrad Szczpaniak, Plaintiff, v. Burlington County, et al., Defendants. Carl D. Poplar, Esq., Cherry Hill, NJ, Seth R. Lesser, Esq., Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP, Rye Brook, NY, William A. Riback, Esq., William Riback, LLC, Haddonfield, NY, for Plaintiffs Tammy Marie Haas and Conrad Szczpaniak. Fran L. Rudich, Esq., Klafter

  8. U.S. v. Judicial Watch, Inc.

    241 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that a stay of enforcement pending appeal may halt the progress of an administrative investigation, thereby harming the government agency