18 Cited authorities

Boumediene v. Bush
553 U.S. 723 (2008) Cited 967 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that enemy combatants are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus
Singleton v. Wulff
428 U.S. 106 (1976) Cited 2,707 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal appellate courts may raise issues sua sponte where "injustice might otherwise result"
Kowalski v. Tesmer
543 U.S. 125 (2004) Cited 699 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that attorneys lacked third party standing to assert the rights of future, as yet unascertained clients with whom “they ha[d] no relationship at all”
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n
514 U.S. 334 (1995) Cited 790 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that anonymous speech is constitutionally protected
Secretary of State of Md. v. J. H. Munson Co.
467 U.S. 947 (1984) Cited 889 times
Holding that a fundraiser that contracted with charities could assert the charities’ First Amendment rights because it had third-party standing to do so
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
494 U.S. 259 (1990) Cited 675 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Fourth Amendment protects only "the people" of the United States and has no application to search-and-seizure challenges where the challenger is a non-citizen/non-resident alien with no voluntary attachment to the United States and the area searched is located outside of the United States
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
530 U.S. 640 (2000) Cited 477 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Boy Scouts' freedom of expressive association was violated by a state law requiring the organization to admit a homosexual scoutmaster
Porter v. Ray
461 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2006) Cited 572 times
Finding no due process violation when the Georgia Parole Board recalculated inmates' TPMs because the system did not "establish[] a legitimate expectation of parole"
Rehberg v. Paulk
611 F.3d 828 (11th Cir. 2010) Cited 303 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed
Smith v. Jefferson County Bd. of School
641 F.3d 197 (6th Cir. 2011) Cited 123 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that any complaints deriving from psychological harm that teachers suffered when they were terminated and their positions were outsourced to a private religious institution were generalized grievances unless they could establish taxpayer standing
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 95,025 times 653 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,547 times 105 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"

Drummond Company, Inc. v. Collingsworth et al

18 Cited authorities

Holding that enemy combatants are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus

Holding that federal appellate courts may raise issues sua sponte where "injustice might otherwise result"

Holding that attorneys lacked third party standing to assert the rights of future, as yet unascertained clients with whom “they ha[d] no relationship at all”

Holding that anonymous speech is constitutionally protected

Holding that a fundraiser that contracted with charities could assert the charities’ First Amendment rights because it had third-party standing to do so

Holding that the Boy Scouts' freedom of expressive association was violated by a state law requiring the organization to admit a homosexual scoutmaster

Finding no due process violation when the Georgia Parole Board recalculated inmates' TPMs because the system did not "establish[] a legitimate expectation of parole"

Holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed

Finding that any complaints deriving from psychological harm that teachers suffered when they were terminated and their positions were outsourced to a private religious institution were generalized grievances unless they could establish taxpayer standing

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"