72 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,647 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
422 U.S. 405 (1975) Cited 2,611 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.
527 U.S. 308 (1999) Cited 778 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that preliminary injunctive relief freezing defendants' assets was not warranted because injunctive relief was historically unavailable where plaintiff sought only money damages for breach of contract
Miller v. French
530 U.S. 327 (2000) Cited 575 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 3626(e) prevents federal courts from employing their traditional equitable authority to enjoin the operation of the PLRA's automatic stay provision, and further finding that the automatic stay provision is constitutional
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc.
570 U.S. 136 (2013) Cited 309 times 92 Legal Analyses
Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"
Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.
516 U.S. 479 (1996) Cited 494 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding citizens cannot recover costs for past cleanup efforts under RCRA
U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
532 U.S. 483 (2001) Cited 371 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that there is no medical-necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana
North Haven Board of Education v. Bell
456 U.S. 512 (1982) Cited 417 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an agency's authority under Title IX both to promulgate regulations and to terminate funds is subject to the program-specific limitation of [that title]"
F. Hofpmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A.
542 U.S. 155 (2004) Cited 210 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding domestic effects exception does not apply where "price-fixing conduct significantly and adversely affects both customers outside the United States and customers within the United States, but the adverse foreign effect is independent of any adverse domestic effect"
Porter v. Warner Co.
328 U.S. 395 (1946) Cited 733 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a separate cause of action for damages was enough to preclude courts from inferring that remedy elsewhere
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 95,318 times 656 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,262 times 141 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,993 times 1236 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Section 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission
15 U.S.C. § 45 Cited 3,857 times 563 Legal Analyses
Providing court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"
Section 53 - False advertisements; injunctions and restraining orders
15 U.S.C. § 53 Cited 816 times 72 Legal Analyses
Providing similar provisional relief where false advertising regarding food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics is at issue
Section 57b - Civil actions for violations of rules and cease and desist orders respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices
15 U.S.C. § 57b Cited 197 times 32 Legal Analyses
Identifying a rule violation under the Act as the basis for a civil action

Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon, Inc.

72 Cited authorities

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"

Holding that preliminary injunctive relief freezing defendants' assets was not warranted because injunctive relief was historically unavailable where plaintiff sought only money damages for breach of contract

Holding that § 3626(e) prevents federal courts from employing their traditional equitable authority to enjoin the operation of the PLRA's automatic stay provision, and further finding that the automatic stay provision is constitutional

Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"

Holding citizens cannot recover costs for past cleanup efforts under RCRA

Holding that there is no medical-necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana

Holding that "an agency's authority under Title IX both to promulgate regulations and to terminate funds is subject to the program-specific limitation of [that title]"

Holding domestic effects exception does not apply where "price-fixing conduct significantly and adversely affects both customers outside the United States and customers within the United States, but the adverse foreign effect is independent of any adverse domestic effect"

Holding that a separate cause of action for damages was enough to preclude courts from inferring that remedy elsewhere

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Providing court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"

Providing similar provisional relief where false advertising regarding food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics is at issue

Identifying a rule violation under the Act as the basis for a civil action