15 Cited authorities

  1. Pearson v. Callahan

    555 U.S. 223 (2009)   Cited 23,184 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may, without deciding whether there was a constitutional violation, look to the question of whether that right was "clearly established"
  2. Saucier v. Katz

    533 U.S. 194 (2001)   Cited 20,520 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."
  3. 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"
  4. Cambridge Holdings v. Federal Ins.

    489 F.3d 1356 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 33 times
    Addressing contract claims rather than tort claims
  5. Venezia v. Robinson

    16 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 51 times
    Noting that a preliminary injunction cannot survive dismissal of the complaint
  6. Farquhar v. Shelden

    116 F.R.D. 70 (E.D. Mich. 1987)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena is not necessary for taking of deposition if person to be examined is a party
  7. 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)
  8. 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
  9. 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"
  10. 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

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 98,450 times   678 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 17,208 times   112 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"
  13. Section 308 - Personal service upon a natural person

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308   Cited 5,301 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"