44 Cited authorities

  1. Terry v. Ohio

    392 U.S. 1 (1968)   Cited 38,249 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop
  2. United States v. Sokolow

    490 U.S. 1 (1989)   Cited 5,209 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding DEA agents had reasonable suspicion to stop Sokolow after evidence from his travel plans and demeanor raised the agents' suspicion of his involvement in illegal drug activity
  3. Hayward v. Marshall

    603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,158 times
    Holding that a certificate of appealability is required to challenge the denial of parole
  4. Republic of Arg. v. NML Capital, Ltd.

    573 U.S. 134 (2014)   Cited 238 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1609 does not immunize "a foreign sovereign's extraterritorial assets" from post-judgment discovery
  5. Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco

    951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 873 times
    Holding that violation accrues when discriminatory act occurred
  6. Biggs v. Terhune

    334 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 568 times
    Holding that due process requirements are satisfied if some evidence supports parole board decision and the evidence has some indicia of reliability
  7. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp.

    519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 927 times
    Holding that the party opposing discovery is "required to carry a heavy burden of showing" why discovery should be denied
  8. EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina

    695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 278 times
    Holding that collateral order doctrine afforded Argentina immediate review of order requiring foreign bank to disclose Argentina's worldwide assets because subsequent appellate review was unavailable and Argentina, as judgment debtor rather than party to whom disclosure order was directed, could not obtain review through disobedience and contempt
  9. Allen v. Sybase, Inc.

    468 F.3d 642 (10th Cir. 2006)   Cited 194 times
    Finding that a district court must defer to a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive order unless it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law
  10. Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC International, Inc.

    160 F.3d 428 (8th Cir. 1998)   Cited 154 times
    Holding that, where evidence of relationship between judgment debtor and its nonparty sole officer, director, and shareholder were sufficient to raise a doubt as to the legitimacy of the transfer of assets between them, "the presumption should be in favor of full discovery of any matters arguably related to Credit Lyonnais's efforts to trace SGC assets and otherwise to enforce its judgment"
  11. Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 72   Cited 167,477 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
  12. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,512 times   657 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  13. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,169 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
  14. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,648 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"
  15. Rule 69 - Execution

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 69   Cited 3,968 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Adopting state law for procedures to execute judgments and obtain relevant discovery
  16. Rule 1101 - Applicability of the Rules

    Fed. R. Evid. 1101   Cited 1,358 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the federal rules of evidence applicable to certain proceedings and not to others
  17. Rule 44.1 - Determining Foreign Law

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1   Cited 1,207 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Noting the court's determination of foreign law is treated as a question of law