20 Cited authorities

Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (1996) Cited 14,250 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts
Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n
554 U.S. 724 (2008) Cited 1,217 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a reasonable expectation that a congressional candidate would be subject to a federal campaign finance law in the future when he "made a public statement expressing his intent" to run for the seat in the future
Blum v. Yaretsky
457 U.S. 991 (1982) Cited 2,785 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that nursing home is not a state actor in part because provision of nursing home services is not a traditional and exclusive sovereign function
Shrader v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 4,326 times
Holding that court has no jurisdiction to review order where it is not mentioned in notice of appeal that expressly lists other orders
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P.
684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 1,217 times
Holding reconsideration "is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues . . . securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple."
Gratz v. Bollinger
539 U.S. 244 (2003) Cited 427 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "administrative challenges" of "providing individualized consideration" do not justify bypassing "narrow tailor[ing]"
Virgin Atlantic Airways v. Nat. Mediation Bd.
956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 2,077 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"
Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp.
156 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 990 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party cannot attempt to obtain "a second bite at the apple" by presenting new theories or re-litigating old issues that were previously addressed
Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co.
683 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 267 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff needed to demonstrate standing with respect to each individual defendant she sought to sue
Schonberger v. Serchuk
742 F. Supp. 108 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) Cited 233 times
Holding Colorado River abstention appropriate in legal malpractice suit where plaintiff raised as defenses in the state action claims identical to those contained in the federal malpractice suit, and state court's resolution of plaintiff's defenses would have collateral estoppel effect in the federal action
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,858 times 1232 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Pinks v. M & T Bank Corp.

20 Cited authorities

Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts

Holding that there was a reasonable expectation that a congressional candidate would be subject to a federal campaign finance law in the future when he "made a public statement expressing his intent" to run for the seat in the future

Holding that nursing home is not a state actor in part because provision of nursing home services is not a traditional and exclusive sovereign function

Holding that court has no jurisdiction to review order where it is not mentioned in notice of appeal that expressly lists other orders

Holding reconsideration "is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues . . . securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple."

Holding that the "administrative challenges" of "providing individualized consideration" do not justify bypassing "narrow tailor[ing]"

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 that a party cannot attempt to obtain "a second bite at the apple" by presenting new theories or re-litigating old issues that were previously addressed

Holding that plaintiff needed to demonstrate standing with respect to each individual defendant she sought to sue

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"