511 U.S. 375 (1994) Cited 19,649 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that absent a reservation of jurisdiction in the stipulated dismissal order, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider enforcement of a settlement agreement
Holding that the “particular combination of sloth, fanaticism, inanity and technical genius ... move these allegations into the realm of claims [that are] essentially fictitious”
Holding that "[f]ederal courts have consistently dismissed complaints in copyright cases presenting only questions of contract law" for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Holding because “state prisoners have no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [pursuant to Heck] . . . federal courts have no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, with respect to claims of unconstitutional deprivations of good time credits”
Holding that a prisoner stated an Eighth Amendment violation by alleging that prison officers failed to transfer him for sixty days after a prison doctor diagnosed the prisoner with gallstones and ordered him to be transferred to a hospital for treatment
Holding that a district court "must take pains to advise a pro se party of the consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion" and that the notice "should include an explanation that the failure to respond ... may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case"
28 U.S.C. § 1291 Cited 89,937 times 139 Legal Analyses
Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"
Fed. R. Civ. P. 81 Cited 3,771 times 6 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "apply to proceedings for habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in those proceedings: is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases; and (B) has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions."