§Why CasetextPricing

Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc.

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment Yahoo! Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment

26 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,210 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,309 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC

    565 U.S. 368 (2012)   Cited 648 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits"

  4. Bedroc Ltd. v. United States

    541 U.S. 176 (2004)   Cited 509 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a court presumes that Congress says in the statute what it means

  5. Satterfield v. Simon Schuster

    569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 418 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FCC's interpretation that a text message is a "call" under the TCPA is reasonable

  6. Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC

    707 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 352 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant violates the TCPA by calling a plaintiff's cellphone using an autodialing system without the plaintiff's consent

  7. Andrus v. Glover Construction Co.

    446 U.S. 608 (1980)   Cited 251 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declining to recognize an additional exception where statute recites explicitly enumerated exceptions to a general prohibition, even where no other exception would be rendered superfluous by the addition

  8. Hunt v. City of Los Angeles

    638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 275 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs' sale of shea butter and incense was not "fully protected speech" because they "are selling items that have a predominantly utilitarian, not an expressive, purpose and do not incorporate artwork created by Plaintiffs"

  9. Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.

    570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 241 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Yahoo! was immune from liability for negligently declining to remove indecent third-party content

  10. Bazuaye v. I.N.S.

    79 F.3d 118 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 223 times
    Holding that issues not raised in the opening brief are waived

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,736 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,663 times   733 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

  13. 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

  14. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary