105 Cited authorities

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
482 U.S. 386 (1987) Cited 11,329 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"
United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974) Cited 4,102 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254
Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council
530 U.S. 363 (2000) Cited 988 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state law is not preempted when compliance with state law does not stand as an "obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress"
English v. General Electric Co.
496 U.S. 72 (1990) Cited 1,318 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a tort arising from whistleblower retaliation at a nuclear facility was insufficiently related to radiological safety aspects in the facility's operation
Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.
487 U.S. 500 (1988) Cited 1,171 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that where evidence in a civil trial does not suffice to support a jury verdict for plaintiff under a properly formulated defense, judgment may be entered for defendant on appeal despite the fact that defendant did not object to jury instructions "that expressed the defense differently, and in a fashion that would support a verdict"
Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs
471 U.S. 707 (1985) Cited 1,193 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding local health ordinance not preempted because "the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern"
Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick
514 U.S. 280 (1995) Cited 628 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a suspended Safety Act standard regarding tractor-trailer air brakes did not preempt common law tort actions
Fla. Avocado Growers v. Paul
373 U.S. 132 (1963) Cited 1,570 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding federal regulation concerning maturity of avocados did not preempt California regulation, where it was not impossible for growers to comply with both regulations
United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.
440 U.S. 715 (1979) Cited 868 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law should be adopted as federal rule for establishing priority between competing federal and private liens since uniform federal rule was not necessary to protect federal interests
Edgar v. MITE Corp.
457 U.S. 624 (1982) Cited 772 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs
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 348,810 times 931 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 17 - Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 Cited 9,221 times 23 Legal Analyses
Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"
Section 2510 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 2510 Cited 4,265 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"
Section 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
18 U.S.C. § 2511 Cited 2,792 times 42 Legal Analyses
Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”
Section 151 - Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created
47 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 1,488 times 24 Legal Analyses
Creating the FCC in 1934 "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."
Section 2520 - Recovery of civil damages authorized
18 U.S.C. § 2520 Cited 1,347 times 2 Legal Analyses
Permitting recovery of actual and punitive damages, as well as a reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of litigation reasonably incurred
Section 2701 - Unlawful access to stored communications
18 U.S.C. § 2701 Cited 1,330 times 135 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any person who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided ... and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage"
Section 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records
18 U.S.C. § 2703 Cited 1,215 times 100 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that these providers "shall disclose" such information "when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute"
Section 201 - Service and charges
47 U.S.C. § 201 Cited 709 times 11 Legal Analyses
Granting rulemaking authority
Section 2707 - Civil action
18 U.S.C. § 2707 Cited 458 times 19 Legal Analyses
Granting relief to those "aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind"

In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

105 Cited authorities

Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"

Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254

Holding that a state law is not preempted when compliance with state law does not stand as an "obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress"

Holding that a tort arising from whistleblower retaliation at a nuclear facility was insufficiently related to radiological safety aspects in the facility's operation

Holding local health ordinance not preempted because "the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern"

Holding that a suspended Safety Act standard regarding tractor-trailer air brakes did not preempt common law tort actions

Holding federal regulation concerning maturity of avocados did not preempt California regulation, where it was not impossible for growers to comply with both regulations

Holding that state law should be adopted as federal rule for establishing priority between competing federal and private liens since uniform federal rule was not necessary to protect federal interests

Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"

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"

Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”

Permitting recovery of actual and punitive damages, as well as a reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of litigation reasonably incurred

Holding liable any person who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided ... and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage"

Recognizing that these providers "shall disclose" such information "when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute"

Granting rulemaking authority

Granting relief to those "aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind"