34 Cited authorities

Nken v. Holder
556 U.S. 418 (2009) Cited 3,301 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"
Wyeth v. Levine
555 U.S. 555 (2009) Cited 1,432 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
CTS Corp. v. Waldburger
573 U.S. 1 (2014) Cited 431 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a statute of limitations creates a time limit for suing in a civil case, based on the date when the claim accrued”
Bond v. United States
572 U.S. 844 (2014) Cited 348 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 does not reach the simple assault at issue in that case
Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun
516 U.S. 199 (1996) Cited 541 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the differently worded provisions of § 1292(b), the entirety of the "order" that is certified for interlocutory appeal is reviewable on the ensuing appeal, including even portions of the order that do not involve the certified question that supports interlocutory jurisdiction
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
563 U.S. 582 (2011) Cited 331 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress’s express reservation of state authority to impose certain civil sanctions means what it says
Virgin Atlantic Airways v. Nat. Mediation Bd.
956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 2,095 times
Holding that "[e]ven if Rule 54(b) allows parties to request district courts to revisit earlier rulings, the moving party must do so within the strictures of the law of the case doctrine"
CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America
481 U.S. 69 (1987) Cited 382 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding Indiana statute regulating acquisition of corporation stock did not merit heightened scrutiny because it had “same effects on tender offers whether or not the offeror is a domiciliary or resident of Indiana”
Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller
486 U.S. 174 (1988) Cited 251 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that "a federally owned facility performing a federal function is shielded from direct state regulation, even though the federal function is carried out by a private contractor, unless Congress clearly authorizes such regulation"
Palmore v. United States
411 U.S. 389 (1973) Cited 361 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress is not required to vest inferior federal courts “with all the jurisdiction it was authorized to bestow under Art. III”
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"
Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions
28 U.S.C. § 1292 Cited 22,327 times 195 Legal Analyses
Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders
Section 4617 - Authority over critically undercapitalized regulated entities
12 U.S.C. § 4617 Cited 666 times 4 Legal Analyses
Granting the FHFA the power to “operate” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and “to conduct all [of their] business”
Section 1787 - Payment of insurance
12 U.S.C. § 1787 Cited 183 times 3 Legal Analyses
Authorizing the conservator to repudiate "any contract"
Section 9658 - Actions under State law for damages from exposure to hazardous substances
42 U.S.C. § 9658 Cited 172 times 14 Legal Analyses
Setting uniform limitations-period commencement date in suits under state law for damages due to hazardous release exposure
Section 815 ILCS 5/13 - Private and other civil remedies; securities
815 ILCS 5/13 Cited 99 times 2 Legal Analyses
Specifying that those who participated or aided in selling a security in violation of the Illinois securities laws are "joint and severally liable to the purchaser," including purchasers' attorneys' fees and expenses

National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. et al

34 Cited authorities

Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"

Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

Holding that “a statute of limitations creates a time limit for suing in a civil case, based on the date when the claim accrued”

Holding that the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 does not reach the simple assault at issue in that case

Holding that, under the differently worded provisions of § 1292(b), the entirety of the "order" that is certified for interlocutory appeal is reviewable on the ensuing appeal, including even portions of the order that do not involve the certified question that supports interlocutory jurisdiction

Holding that Congress’s express reservation of state authority to impose certain civil sanctions means what it says

Holding that "[e]ven if Rule 54(b) allows parties to request district courts to revisit earlier rulings, the moving party must do so within the strictures of the law of the case doctrine"

Holding Indiana statute regulating acquisition of corporation stock did not merit heightened scrutiny because it had “same effects on tender offers whether or not the offeror is a domiciliary or resident of Indiana”

Concluding that "a federally owned facility performing a federal function is shielded from direct state regulation, even though the federal function is carried out by a private contractor, unless Congress clearly authorizes such regulation"

Holding that Congress is not required to vest inferior federal courts “with all the jurisdiction it was authorized to bestow under Art. III”

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders

Granting the FHFA the power to “operate” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and “to conduct all [of their] business”

Authorizing the conservator to repudiate "any contract"

Setting uniform limitations-period commencement date in suits under state law for damages due to hazardous release exposure

Specifying that those who participated or aided in selling a security in violation of the Illinois securities laws are "joint and severally liable to the purchaser," including purchasers' attorneys' fees and expenses