76 Cited authorities

  1. Lindh v. Murphy

    521 U.S. 320 (1997)   Cited 11,074 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the statutory language must be "so clear that it [can] sustain only one interpretation" favoring retroactivity
  2. Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer

    510 U.S. 471 (1994)   Cited 7,057 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a Bivens claim does not lie against federal agencies because, if damages claims were permitted against federal agencies, "there would be no reason for aggrieved parties to bring damages actions against individual officers" and thus "the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost"
  3. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

    518 U.S. 470 (1996)   Cited 2,419 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"
  4. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,434 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims
  5. Kyllo v. United States

    533 U.S. 27 (2001)   Cited 1,617 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the use of a thermal imager to detect heat radiating from a home was a search
  6. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,187 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA
  7. Astoria Federal S. L. Ass'n. v. Solimino

    501 U.S. 104 (1991)   Cited 1,255 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a plaintiff must exhaust state administrative proceedings to bring federal claims, the administrative adjudication lacks res judicata effect, as an exception to the default rule of administrative preclusion
  8. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,433 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"
  9. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare

    534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,444 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this court may affirm on the basis of any ground fairly supported by the record
  10. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.

    552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,329 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[m]ere conclusory allegations" about the resignations of company executives did not, without more, give rise to a strong inference of scienter
  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 348,046 times   927 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,915 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices
  13. Section 2510 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 2510   Cited 4,262 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Defining "[i]nvestigative or law enforcement officer" as an officer "empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for [certain] offenses . . . and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses"
  14. Section 2518 - Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications

    18 U.S.C. § 2518   Cited 2,900 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that some investigative techniques may be “too dangerous”
  15. Section 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

    18 U.S.C. § 2511   Cited 2,789 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”
  16. Section 2516 - Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications

    18 U.S.C. § 2516   Cited 839 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Listing the executive officers who may authorize a wiretap application
  17. Section 9.73.010 - Divulging telegram

    Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.010   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Every person who shall wrongfully obtain or attempt to obtain, any knowledge of a telegraphic message, by connivance with the clerk, operator, messenger, or other employee of a telegraph company, and every clerk, operator, messenger, or other employee of such company who shall willfully divulge to any but the person for whom it was intended, any telegraphic message or dispatch intrusted to him or her for transmission or delivery, or the nature or contents thereof, or shall willfully refuse, neglect