80 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,709 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,625 times 365 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,637 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell
538 U.S. 408 (2003) Cited 2,674 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
517 U.S. 559 (1996) Cited 2,852 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept
901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 15,993 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a cognizable gender discrimination claim could be brought by a female domestic violence victim where the victim alleged police denied protection and made misogynistic comments including that "he did not blame [the victim's] husband for hitting her, because of the way she was 'carrying on'"
Leocal v. Ashcroft
543 U.S. 1 (2004) Cited 1,153 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "DUI causing serious bodily injury" is not a "crime of violence"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,788 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.
529 U.S. 861 (2000) Cited 787 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n
505 U.S. 88 (1992) Cited 891 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "nonapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly preempted" by OSHA's standard
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 345,885 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 2510 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 2510 Cited 4,250 times 78 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 2518 - Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
18 U.S.C. § 2518 Cited 2,896 times 13 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that some investigative techniques may be “too dangerous”
Section 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
18 U.S.C. § 2511 Cited 2,781 times 42 Legal Analyses
Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”
Section 2701 - Unlawful access to stored communications
18 U.S.C. § 2701 Cited 1,324 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 1,204 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 2516 - Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
18 U.S.C. § 2516 Cited 838 times 2 Legal Analyses
Listing the executive officers who may authorize a wiretap application
Section 2515 - Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications
18 U.S.C. § 2515 Cited 741 times 3 Legal Analyses
Codifying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine for wiretapping evidence
Section 632 - Unlawful eavesdropping or recording
Cal. Pen. Code § 632 Cited 547 times 16 Legal Analyses
Providing for "imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year"
Section 2707 - Civil action
18 U.S.C. § 2707 Cited 457 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"

Penkava v. Yahoo!, Inc.

80 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process

Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit

Holding that a "DUI causing serious bodily injury" is not a "crime of violence"

Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”

Holding that "nonapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly preempted" by OSHA's standard

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

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"

Recognizing that some investigative techniques may be “too dangerous”

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

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"

Listing the executive officers who may authorize a wiretap application

Codifying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine for wiretapping evidence

Providing for "imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year"

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"