§Why CasetextPricing

HASSELL v. BIRD

Respondents’ Answer Brief on the Merits

84 Cited authorities

  1. Board of Regents v. Roth

    408 U.S. 564 (1972)   Cited 14,680 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."

  2. United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa

    559 U.S. 260 (2010)   Cited 1,842 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"

  3. Washington v. Glucksberg

    521 U.S. 702 (1997)   Cited 2,633 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide

  4. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

    465 U.S. 770 (1984)   Cited 3,025 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

  5. 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

  6. 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”

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

    591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,041 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a website did not contribute to alleged illegality

  8. 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"

  9. 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

  10. 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"

  11. Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65   Cited 22,408 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 1,017 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Limiting liability

  13. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer