§Why CasetextPricing

Patel v. Facebook, Inc.

REPLY

38 Cited authorities

  1. Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.

    666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 967 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that false advertising "class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading"

  2. Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.

    24 Cal.4th 906 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 562 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a choice of law provision may not be disregarded “merely because it may hinder the prosecution of multi-state or nationwide class action or [exclude] nonresident consumers from a California-based class action”

  3. Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 567 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "governed by" in a choice of law clause compels the "logical conclusion" that the parties "intended that law to apply to all disputes arising out of the transaction or relationship"

  4. Pokorny v. Quixtar

    601 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 208 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a unilateral clause shortening the limitations period added to the unconscionability of the contract

  5. Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C

    225 Ill. 2d 52 (Ill. 2006)   Cited 208 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that whether a party has committed a material breach of contract is a question of fact and the circuit court's determination is subject to a manifest weight of the evidence standard

  6. Fteja v. Facebook, Inc.

    841 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 150 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when a consumer is prompted to examine terms of sale located on another page available via hyperlink, "[w]hether or not the consumer bothers to look is irrelevant" because "[f]ailure to read a contract before agreement to its terms does not retrieve a party of its obligations under the contract"

  7. Fidelity Federal Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp.

    387 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 129 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding award of "interest at the statutory rate" did not circumvent the federal rate

  8. Swanson v. Image Bank

    206 Ariz. 264 (Ariz. 2003)   Cited 91 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "whether the disputed issue is one which the parties could have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement" is a question for the forum state

  9. Maher Associates v. Quality Cabinets

    267 Ill. App. 3d 69 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 100 times
    Finding Illinois did not have a materially greater interest in the litigation where defendant in a contract dispute was incorporated in the foreign jurisdiction and had its principal place of business there

  10. Brown v. Mudron

    379 Ill. App. 3d 724 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 47 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restrictive covenant not to compete will not be enforced against an at-will employee unless the employee has continued employment for a substantial period of time

  11. Section 1961 - Interest

    28 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 11,378 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 6621 applies to internal revenue tax cases

  12. Section 740 ILCS 14/10 - Definitions

    740 ILCS 14/10   Cited 111 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Defining “[p]rivate entity” as any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or other group, however organized”

  13. Section 740 ILCS 14/5 - Legislative Findings; Intent

    740 ILCS 14/5   Cited 93 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing public's wariness of use of biometrics and need for regulation for public welfare, security and safety

  14. Section 820 ILCS 120/2

    820 ILCS 120/2   Cited 39 times

    All commissions due at the time of termination of a contract between a sales representative and principal shall be paid within 13 days of termination, and commissions that become due after termination shall be paid within 13 days of the date on which such commissions become due. Any provision in any contract between a sales representative and principal purporting to waive any of the provisions of this Act shall be void. 820 ILCS 120/2 P.A. 84-627.