30 Cited authorities

  1. Youngberg v. Romeo

    457 U.S. 307 (1982)   Cited 3,138 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that severely retarded man's liberty interests in safety, freedom from bodily restraint and reasonable training survive involuntary commitment
  2. Parsons v. Ryan

    754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 469 times
    Holding that the "policies and practices to which all members of the class are subjected . . . are the 'glue' that holds together the putative class . . . either each of the policies and practices is unlawful as to every inmate or it is not"
  3. Jewett v. Anders

    521 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 206 times
    Holding that qualified immunity protects those who make a reasonable error in determining whether there is a reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop
  4. Smego v. Mitchell

    723 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2013)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that fact issues precluded summary judgment in favor of dentist where, although some of her alleged conduct, "standing alone, could be regarded simply as negligence . . . a reasonable jury could look at this pattern and infer deliberate indifference, particularly because [the dentist] offered no medical justification for the long delays in treatment or her refusal to prescribe appropriate pain medication."
  5. Link v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

    788 F.2d 918 (3d Cir. 1986)   Cited 202 times
    Holding that in order to satisfy the co-conspirator exception plaintiff must join the alleged co-conspirators as co-defendants
  6. U.S. v. Giovannetti

    919 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no error in allowing a witness to testify that he thought a home owned by the defendant was being used as a gambling house based on facts "known equally or better" by the defendant himself
  7. Kemezy v. Peters

    79 F.3d 33 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 122 times
    Holding it is the defendant's burden to prove net worth in the punitive damages phase of a § 1983 case
  8. United States v. Fluker

    698 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 68 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that emails may be authenticated "using circumstantial evidence"
  9. U.S. v. Dumeisi

    424 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 63 times
    Holding Iraqi intelligence documents admissible under Rule 807 where witnesses positively identified the documents, as well as handwriting, symbols, codes, abbreviations, and signatures on them, and also testified that the officers had a duty to accurately record their activities and information received from other sources
  10. U.S. v. Santos

    589 F.3d 759 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inmate's nearly identical statement about his pain level to a prison nurse was "for medical treatment to ‘meet an ongoing emergency’ " rather than "to gather evidence for trial or prison disciplinary proceedings"
  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,819 times   259 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard
  12. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 13,499 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"
  13. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 12,713 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities
  14. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,179 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication
  15. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,749 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted