§Why CasetextPricing

HASSELL v. BIRD

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

82 Cited authorities

  1. Duncan v. Walker

    533 U.S. 167 (2001)   Cited 5,471 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendancy of a federal petition

  2. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

    376 U.S. 254 (1964)   Cited 6,910 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice

  3. Nemet Chevrolet v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.

    591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,044 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a website did not contribute to alleged illegality

  4. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

    521 U.S. 844 (1997)   Cited 987 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding parts of § 223 unconstitutional under the First Amendment

  5. Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation

    402 U.S. 313 (1971)   Cited 2,222 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

  6. Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart

    427 U.S. 539 (1976)   Cited 1,428 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the record [was] lacking in evidence to support" a finding that alternative "measures might not be adequate"

  7. Richards v. Jefferson County

    517 U.S. 793 (1996)   Cited 511 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding application of preclusion violated due process where there were neither special procedures to protect nonparties' interests or an understanding by the initial plaintiffs that their suit was brought in representative capacity

  8. Arkansas Ed. Television Comm'n v. Forbes

    523 U.S. 666 (1998)   Cited 413 times
    Holding that, “with the exception of traditional public fora, the government retains the choice of whether to designate its property as a forum for specified classes of speakers”

  9. Doe v. Myspace

    528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 762 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that CDA bars claims for negligence and gross negligence in not preventing a 13 year old girl from lying about her age to create a personal profile that led to contact by a sexual predator

  10. Bigelow v. Virginia

    421 U.S. 809 (1975)   Cited 548 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newspaper publisher who had been convicted of violating a state statute outlawing advertising regarding abortion services had standing to challenge the law on First Amendment grounds

  11. Section 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

    47 U.S.C. § 230   Cited 1,018 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Limiting liability

  12. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)