15 Cited authorities

Pearson v. Callahan
555 U.S. 223 (2009) Cited 23,455 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that, while there is still a two-pronged test, courts of appeals can use their discretion as to which prong to address first
Saucier v. Katz
533 U.S. 194 (2001) Cited 20,629 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding when a defendant seeks qualified immunity, "a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where the defense is dispositive."
University of Texas at Austin v. Vratil
96 F.3d 1337 (10th Cir. 1996) Cited 62 times
Holding that "state colleges and universities . . . are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity"
Cambridge Holdings v. Federal Ins.
489 F.3d 1356 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Cited 33 times
Addressing contract claims rather than tort claims
Venezia v. Robinson
16 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 1994) Cited 53 times
Noting that a preliminary injunction cannot survive dismissal of the complaint
Farquhar v. Shelden
116 F.R.D. 70 (E.D. Mich. 1987) Cited 63 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena is not necessary for taking of deposition if person to be examined is a party
Brown v. Fisher
251 F. App'x 527 (10th Cir. 2007) Cited 19 times 3 Legal Analyses
Discussing Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Tullos-Pierremont , 894 F.2d 1469, 1473 (5th Cir. 1990)
Loman Dev. Co. v. Daytona Hotel Motel
817 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1987) Cited 39 times
Holding that unserved defendants were not parties under an old version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54
Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp.
789 F.2d 846 (10th Cir. 1986) Cited 30 times
Holding that because certain defendants were never served, they "were never made parties to lawsuit," and it was therefore "not necessary for the district court to enter an order dismissing them prior to its entry of the order and judgment"
United States v. Chi. Medi-Car Transit Corp.
No. 11-CV-3276 (C.D. Ill. Jun. 11, 2015)
No. 11-CV-3276 06-11-2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiffs, v. CHICAGO MEDI-CAR TRANSIT CORP. and BHARAT K. LILWANI, Defendants. TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER AND OPINION : Before the Court is the Motion for Amended Scheduling Order (d/e 56) filed by Plaintiff United States of America (United States), Relator, against Defendants herein. Defendants have responded to the Plaintiff's motion (d/e 57). Background Plaintiffs brought this action under the False
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 100,359 times 686 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 17,624 times 113 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"
Section 308 - Personal service upon a natural person
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308 Cited 5,382 times
Providing for "nail and mail" service and for service "in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs, if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of this section"

Coach, Inc. et al v. Di Da Import and Export Inc.

15 Cited authorities

Holding that, while there is still a two-pronged test, courts of appeals can use their discretion as to which prong to address first

Holding when a defendant seeks qualified immunity, "a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where the defense is dispositive."

Holding that "state colleges and universities . . . are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity"

Addressing contract claims rather than tort claims

Noting that a preliminary injunction cannot survive dismissal of the complaint

Holding that a subpoena is not necessary for taking of deposition if person to be examined is a party

Discussing Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Tullos-Pierremont , 894 F.2d 1469, 1473 (5th Cir. 1990)

Holding that unserved defendants were not parties under an old version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54

Holding that because certain defendants were never served, they "were never made parties to lawsuit," and it was therefore "not necessary for the district court to enter an order dismissing them prior to its entry of the order and judgment"

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

Providing for "nail and mail" service and for service "in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs, if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of this section"