§Why CasetextPricing

HASSELL v. BIRD

Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

79 Cited authorities

  1. United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa

    559 U.S. 260 (2010)   Cited 1,843 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that rule 60(b) applies "in the rare instance where a judgment is premised . . . on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard"

  2. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

    465 U.S. 770 (1984)   Cited 3,027 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because the defendant was "carrying on a part of its general business" in the state, it was fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of that activity

  3. 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

  4. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

    535 U.S. 234 (2002)   Cited 945 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid the challenged provision of the CPPA because it “cover[ed] materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller”

  5. 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

  6. 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"

  7. Herbert v. Lando

    441 U.S. 153 (1979)   Cited 1,587 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could "hardly be doubted" even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition

  8. Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council

    425 U.S. 748 (1976)   Cited 1,730 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding society and consumers both have a strong interest "in the free flow of commercial information"

  9. Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    461 U.S. 731 (1983)   Cited 962 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

  10. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps

    475 U.S. 767 (1986)   Cited 689 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where plaintiff is a private figure and newspaper articles are a matter of public concern, there is a "constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages"

  11. Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65   Cited 22,421 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

  12. 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

  13. 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)