§Why CasetextPricing

In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation

RESPONSE/REPLY to 2124 Notice of Supplemental Authority

7 Cited authorities

  1. Tyler v. Cain

    533 U.S. 656 (2001)   Cited 1,460 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "made" means "held" under identical language in § 2244(b) and that it must be held retroactive by the Supreme Court

  2. Stutson v. United States

    516 U.S. 193 (1996)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that the Pioneer standard applies to Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)

  3. Wellons v. Hall

    558 U.S. 220 (2010)   Cited 53 times
    Issuing a GVR order where a Court of Appeals erroneously applied a procedural bar and also stated it would independently deny relief on the merits, because the Court of Appeals gave, "at most, perfunctory consideration" to the merits without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, leaving this Court unsure whether the merits determination "really was independent" of the error

  4. Sutherland v. Llp

    768 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 26 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding that an employee utilizing Ernst & Young's arbitration program would likely have to spend $200,000 to recover only $1,867.02 in overtime pay and an equivalent amount in liquidated damages

  5. U.S. v. Adewani

    467 F.3d 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 18 times
    Holding sufficient evidence existed to support a theory of constructive possession where gun was close to defendant and evidence supported finding that defendant owned vehicle

  6. U.S. v. Vanorden

    414 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2005)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that appellant had abandoned any Apprendi-Blakely-Booker claim by failing to brief it

  7. Boehner v. McDermott

    332 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2004)   Cited 10 times

    Civ. No. 98-0594 (TFH). August 20, 2004 Louis K. Fisher, Michael Carvin, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Edwin John U., Eugene Frank Assaf, Jr., Frank Cicero, Jr., Kirland Ellis, Chicago, IL, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION THOMAS HOGAN, Chief Judge, District Pending before the Court are Plaintiff and Defendant's cross motions for summary judgment. Because both motions relate to the same set of facts and issues, the Court will rule on both motions simultaneously. Upon careful