§Why CasetextPricing

ROSE v. BANK OF AMERICA (Mauro, J., assigned justice pro tempore; Chin, J., not participating)

Appellants’ Opening Brief on the Merits

49 Cited authorities

  1. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.

    545 U.S. 546 (2005)   Cited 4,154 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the supplemental jurisdiction statute permits the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs who fail to satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as the other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff does satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement

  2. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation Trust

    463 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 10,423 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"

  3. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

    518 U.S. 470 (1996)   Cited 2,412 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

  4. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,429 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

  5. Jones v. United States

    526 U.S. 227 (1999)   Cited 1,898 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt"

  6. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    505 U.S. 504 (1992)   Cited 2,399 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express warranty was not a "requirement ... imposed under State law" because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor

  7. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

    544 U.S. 431 (2005)   Cited 547 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a preemption clause barring state laws "in addition to or different" from a federal Act does not interfere with an "equivalent" state provision

  8. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,419 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

  9. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting

    563 U.S. 582 (2011)   Cited 331 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress’s express reservation of state authority to impose certain civil sanctions means what it says

  10. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin

    444 U.S. 555 (1980)   Cited 832 times
    Holding that deference was appropriate to official staff opinions of Federal Reserve Board interpreting the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, unless demonstrably irrational

  11. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,798 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  12. Section 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose

    15 U.S.C. § 1681   Cited 6,282 times   190 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the need to protect "the consumer's right to privacy"

  13. Section 2601 - Congressional findings and purpose

    12 U.S.C. § 2601   Cited 3,436 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing purpose of RESPA is "to effect certain changes in the settlement process for residential real estate"

  14. Section 1320d - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 1320d   Cited 669 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Defining "individually identifiable health information"

  15. Section 136 - Definitions

    7 U.S.C. § 136   Cited 639 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Determining "unreasonable risk to man or the environment" includes consideration of "economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide"

  16. Section 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1324a   Cited 580 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Attorney General to pursue injunctive relief and criminal sanctions in federal district court

  17. Section 136v - Authority of States

    7 U.S.C. § 136v   Cited 340 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Permitting state regulation of pesticides "but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter"

  18. Section 12 - Seal of Comptroller

    12 U.S.C. § 12   Cited 210 times   4 Legal Analyses

    The seal devised by the Comptroller of the Currency for his office, and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall continue to be the seal of office of the comptroller, and may be renewed when necessary. A description of the seal, with an impression thereof, and a certificate of approval by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State. 12 U.S.C. § 12 R.S. §330; Feb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, §1, 18 Stat. 317. EDITORIAL NOTES CODIFICATIONR.S. §330 derived from

  19. Section 1610 - Effect on other laws

    15 U.S.C. § 1610   Cited 153 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Allowing states to regulate consumer credit charges

  20. Section 2616 - State laws unaffected; inconsistent Federal and State provisions

    12 U.S.C. § 2616   Cited 41 times

    This chapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this chapter from complying with, the laws of any State with respect to settlement practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this chapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. The Bureau is authorized to determine whether such inconsistencies exist. The Bureau may not determine that any State law is inconsistent with any provision of this chapter

  21. Section 226.9 - Subsequent disclosure requirements

    12 C.F.R. § 226.9   Cited 120 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing creditor must give notice "[w]henever any term required to be disclosed under § 226.6 is changed"

  22. Section 226.28 - Effect on State laws

    12 C.F.R. § 226.28   Cited 40 times
    Providing that, as a general matter, "state law requirements that are inconsistent with the requirements contained in chapter 1 (General Provisions), chapter 2 (Credit Transactions), or chapter 3 (Credit Advertising) of the act and the implementing provisions of this regulation are preempted to the extent of the inconsistency"; adding that " State law is inconsistent if it requires a creditor to make disclosures or take actions that contradict the requirements of the Federal law"

  23. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or