§Why CasetextPricing

HASSELL v. BIRD

Respondents’ Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

37 Cited authorities

  1. Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co.

    484 U.S. 97 (1987)   Cited 1,881 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process concerns related to personal jurisdiction are alleviated where the defendant has consented to service

  2. Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.

    339 U.S. 306 (1950)   Cited 10,304 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"

  3. 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”

  4. Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.

    137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017)   Cited 513 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "individuals and entities who regularly purchase debts originated by someone else and then seek to collect those debts for their own account" are not debt collectors under the FDCPA even if the purchased debt was already in default

  5. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union

    466 U.S. 485 (1984)   Cited 1,618 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"

  6. Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine

    395 U.S. 100 (1969)   Cited 2,446 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court erred when it enjoined a nonparty that was never determined to be in active concert with a defendant

  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. Alexander v. United States

    509 U.S. 544 (1993)   Cited 541 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in personam criminal forfeiture is subject to the Excessive Fines Clause

  9. Freedman v. Maryland

    380 U.S. 51 (1965)   Cited 1,122 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding statute unconstitutional "in its entirety" because it "fails to provide adequate safeguards against undue inhibition of protected expression"

  10. Hoover v. Ronwin

    466 U.S. 558 (1984)   Cited 350 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state-action immunity can be decided on a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss

  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