50 Cited authorities

  1. Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn

    457 U.S. 423 (1982)   Cited 4,540 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because an important state interest was involved and no bad faith, harassment, or other exceptional circumstances dictated to the contrary, federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state bar disciplinary proceedings
  2. Plyler v. Doe

    457 U.S. 202 (1982)   Cited 3,048 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that States cannot deny to illegal aliens the free public education they provide to citizens and legally documented aliens
  3. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.

    531 U.S. 457 (2001)   Cited 1,129 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency rulemaking "has no bearing upon" whether a statutory delegation is constitutional
  4. Gregory v. Ashcroft

    501 U.S. 452 (1991)   Cited 997 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding Missouri's judicial age limitation of 70 rationally related to such legitimate purposes as avoiding laborious testing of older judges' physical and mental acuity, promoting orderly attrition of judges, and recognizing that judges' remoteness from public view makes determination of competency, and removal from office, more difficult than for other office-holders
  5. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona

    433 U.S. 350 (1977)   Cited 1,044 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state rule barring lawyers from advertising their services was not challengeable under the Sherman Act but also that the state rule, as applied, violated the attorneys' First Amendment free speech rights
  6. Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States

    559 U.S. 229 (2010)   Cited 288 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protect Action of 2005 plainly covers lawyers as “debt relief agencies”
  7. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar

    421 U.S. 773 (1975)   Cited 806 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a minimum fee schedule enforced by the Virginia state bar did not fall within the Parker exception because the fee schedule was not mandated by the Virginia Supreme Court and thus it could not "fairly be said that the State of Virginia through its Supreme Court Rules required the anticompetitive activities"
  8. Hubbard v. United States

    514 U.S. 695 (1995)   Cited 235 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's criminal conviction under a particular statute must be reversed as his conduct fell outside the scope of the statute, but not finding that the underlying statute was unconstitutionally vague
  9. Leis v. Flynt

    439 U.S. 438 (1979)   Cited 346 times
    Holding that out-of-state attorneys did not have a federal constitutional right to appear pro hac vice in Ohio court
  10. Keller v. State Bar of California

    496 U.S. 1 (1990)   Cited 218 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "compelled association" of state bar was justified by the "State's interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services"
  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 498,820 times   702 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
  12. Section 2000e - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e   Cited 52,205 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
  13. Section 621 - Congressional statement of findings and purpose

    29 U.S.C. § 621   Cited 17,631 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"
  14. Section 1101 - Definitions

    8 U.S.C. § 1101   Cited 16,604 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status
  15. Section 1962 - Prohibited activities

    18 U.S.C. § 1962   Cited 16,127 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Specifying prohibited activities
  16. Section 12132 - Discrimination

    42 U.S.C. § 12132   Cited 8,438 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting disability discrimination by public entities
  17. Section 1001 - Statements or entries generally

    18 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 7,439 times   307 Legal Analyses
    Making false statements
  18. Section 8 - Powers of Congress

    U.S. Const. art. I, § 8   Cited 7,055 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Granting Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” and to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
  19. Section 1692a - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 1692a   Cited 6,296 times   83 Legal Analyses
    Defining debt collector
  20. Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status

    8 U.S.C. § 1229b   Cited 5,166 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Attorney General discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who has “been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a ... parent who is ... a United States citizen”
  21. Section 274a.2 - Verification of identity and employment authorization

    8 C.F.R. § 274a.2   Cited 85 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Establishing Form I–9
  22. Section 274a.5 - Use of labor through contract

    8 C.F.R. § 274a.5

    Any person or entity who uses a contract, subcontract, or exchange entered into, renegotiated, or extended after November 6, 1986 (or, with respect to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, after the transition program effective date as defined in 8 CFR 1.1 ), to obtain the labor or services of an alien in the United States knowing that the alien is an unauthorized alien with respect to performing such labor or services, shall be considered to have hired the alien for employment in the

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,280 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