40 Cited authorities

Barnhart v. Thomas
540 U.S. 20 (2003) Cited 4,458 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that at step four, in concluding that a claimant may return to her past relevant work, an ALJ need not investigate whether that work exists in significant numbers in the national economy, noting that the inquiry into the "national economy" is reserved for step five
Hishon v. King Spalding
467 U.S. 69 (1984) Cited 12,455 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding Title VII applies to selection for non-employee positions if consideration for that position can be regarded as one of "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" of a covered job
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida
517 U.S. 44 (1996) Cited 5,097 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress cannot abrogate state-sovereign immunity under its Article I commerce power, and rejecting the result in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. , 491 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 105 L.Ed.2d 1, seven years later; the decision in Union Gas never garnered a majority
Cannon v. University of Chicago
441 U.S. 677 (1979) Cited 2,356 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 created a private right of action for victims of education discrimination
Key Tronic Corp. v. United States
511 U.S. 809 (1994) Cited 592 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the award of monetary damages ... to fund a future clean-up of ... property violate CERCLA” because § 113(g) provides that under § 107 the remedy for future response costs is a declaratory judgment
Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
543 U.S. 335 (2005) Cited 422 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress could not have ratified a “settled construction” of a statute, because there was no “judicial consensus so broad and unquestioned that we must presume Congress knew of and endorsed it”
Cooper v. Aviall
543 U.S. 157 (2004) Cited 419 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the portion of § 113(f) cited above "rebuts any presumption that the express right of contribution provided by the enabling clause is the exclusive cause of action for contribution available to a [potentially responsible party]"
Tex. Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.
451 U.S. 630 (1981) Cited 725 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding no right of contribution under Clayton and Sherman Acts
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers
451 U.S. 77 (1981) Cited 716 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding no federal common law right to contribution in action by employer against union following class action in which employer was found to have violated Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by paying collectively bargained wages
Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.
491 U.S. 1 (1989) Cited 468 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal court may order a State to pay clean up costs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
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 347,669 times 925 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
Fed. R. Evid. 201 Cited 28,448 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."
Section 2201 - Creation of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2201 Cited 24,607 times 61 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment
Section 9601 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 9601 Cited 4,274 times 131 Legal Analyses
Adopting the definition of “disposal” contained in the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Section 9607 - Liability
42 U.S.C. § 9607 Cited 3,269 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding certain listed persons strictly "liable" for specified cleanup costs
Section 9613 - Civil proceedings
42 U.S.C. § 9613 Cited 2,180 times 38 Legal Analyses
Granting federal district courts "exclusive original jurisdiction" of CERCLA actions
Section 9620 - Federal facilities
42 U.S.C. § 9620 Cited 125 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "the United States" liable "to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including" as regards "liability under" 42 U.S.C. § 9607's "owner or operator" provision
Section 300.700 - Activities by other persons
40 C.F.R. § 300.700 Cited 227 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that "[p]rivate parties undertaking response actions should provide an opportunity for public comment concerning the selection of the response action"

Lockheed Martin Corporation et al v. United States of America

40 Cited authorities

Holding that at step four, in concluding that a claimant may return to her past relevant work, an ALJ need not investigate whether that work exists in significant numbers in the national economy, noting that the inquiry into the "national economy" is reserved for step five

Holding Title VII applies to selection for non-employee positions if consideration for that position can be regarded as one of "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" of a covered job

Holding that Congress cannot abrogate state-sovereign immunity under its Article I commerce power, and rejecting the result in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. , 491 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 105 L.Ed.2d 1, seven years later; the decision in Union Gas never garnered a majority

Holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 created a private right of action for victims of education discrimination

Holding that “the award of monetary damages ... to fund a future clean-up of ... property violate CERCLA” because § 113(g) provides that under § 107 the remedy for future response costs is a declaratory judgment

Holding that Congress could not have ratified a “settled construction” of a statute, because there was no “judicial consensus so broad and unquestioned that we must presume Congress knew of and endorsed it”

Holding that the portion of § 113(f) cited above "rebuts any presumption that the express right of contribution provided by the enabling clause is the exclusive cause of action for contribution available to a [potentially responsible party]"

Holding no right of contribution under Clayton and Sherman Acts

Holding no federal common law right to contribution in action by employer against union following class action in which employer was found to have violated Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by paying collectively bargained wages

Holding that a federal court may order a State to pay clean up costs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

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

Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

Adopting the definition of “disposal” contained in the Solid Waste Disposal Act

Holding certain listed persons strictly "liable" for specified cleanup costs

Granting federal district courts "exclusive original jurisdiction" of CERCLA actions

Holding "the United States" liable "to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including" as regards "liability under" 42 U.S.C. § 9607's "owner or operator" provision

Stating that "[p]rivate parties undertaking response actions should provide an opportunity for public comment concerning the selection of the response action"