86 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 25,644 times   222 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,391 times   504 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”
  3. Lewis v. Casey

    518 U.S. 343 (1996)   Cited 13,928 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts
  4. Rizzo v. Goode

    423 U.S. 362 (1976)   Cited 12,973 times
    Holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain injunctive relief against senior police officials to impose tighter police discipline to prevent harm to civilians
  5. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 11,603 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
  6. Mazurek v. Armstrong

    520 U.S. 968 (1997)   Cited 3,242 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief has a "requirement for substantial proof is much higher" than a defendant's summary judgment motion
  7. Camreta v. Greene

    563 U.S. 692 (2011)   Cited 1,043 times
    Holding that, when "a civil suit becomes moot pending appeal," we may "vacate the judgment below" so "no party is harmed by what we have called a preliminary adjudication"
  8. Agostini v. Felton

    521 U.S. 203 (1997)   Cited 1,602 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "lower courts should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions"
  9. Unified School Dist. v. Newdow

    542 U.S. 1 (2004)   Cited 1,189 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff lacked standing because the interests of the plaintiff and the right-holder were "potentially in conflict"
  10. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

    505 U.S. 833 (1992)   Cited 1,846 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a spousal notification provision was unconstitutional
  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 472,995 times   659 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
  12. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 33,987 times   1225 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"
  13. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 25,843 times   237 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard
  14. Section 2201 - Creation of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2201   Cited 24,133 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment
  15. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,546 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted
  16. Section 300a-7 - Sterilization or abortion

    42 U.S.C. § 300a-7   Cited 52 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting discrimination against abortion providers in the decision whether the grant admitting privileges
  17. Section 2919.123 - Unlawful distribution of an abortion-inducing drug

    Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.123   Cited 12 times

    (A) No person shall knowingly give, sell, dispense, administer, or otherwise provide RU-486 (mifepristone) to another for the purpose of inducing an abortion in any person or enabling the other person to induce an abortion in any person, unless the person who gives, sells, dispenses, administers, or otherwise provides the RU-486 (mifepristone) is a physician, the physician satisfies all the criteria established by federal law that a physician must satisfy in order to provide RU-486 (mifepristone)

  18. Section 103.002 - Discrimination Prohibited

    Tex. Occ. Code § 103.002   Cited 7 times

    (a) A hospital or health care facility may not discriminate against a physician, nurse, staff member, or employee, or an applicant for one of those positions, who refuses to perform or participate in an abortion procedure. (b) A hospital or health care facility may not discriminate against a physician, nurse, staff member, or employee because of the person's willingness to participate in an abortion procedure at another facility. (c) An educational institution may not discriminate against an applicant

  19. Section 65-4a10 - Performance of abortions; only physicians; RU-486 or any drug induced abortion requirements; violations

    Kan. Stat. § 65-4a10   Cited 2 times

    (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced by any person other than a physician licensed to practice medicine in the state of Kansas. (b) (1) Except in the case of an abortion performed in a hospital through inducing labor: (A) When RU-486 (mifepristone) is used for the purpose of inducing an abortion, the drug shall initially be administered by or in the same room and in the physical presence of the physician who prescribed, dispensed or otherwise provided the drug to the patient; and (B) when

  20. Section 28-335 - Abortion by other than licensed physician; penalty; physical presence; violation; penalty

    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-335   Cited 2 times
    Stating that no abortion shall be performed unless the physician who prescribes the drug is physically present in the same room with the patient when the physician induces the abortion