114 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,637 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,955 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
New Hampshire v. Maine
532 U.S. 742 (2001) Cited 4,543 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”
Taylor v. Sturgell
553 U.S. 880 (2008) Cited 3,164 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that adequate representation requires that "[t]he interests of the nonparty and her representative are aligned" and "the party understood herself to be acting in a representative capacity."
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
518 U.S. 415 (1996) Cited 2,313 times
Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)
Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education
465 U.S. 75 (1984) Cited 3,551 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"
Pegram v. Herdrich
530 U.S. 211 (2000) Cited 1,351 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was "jurisdiction regardless of the correctness of the removal" because the "amended complaint alleged ERISA violations, over which the federal courts have jurisdiction"
Ashe v. Swenson
397 U.S. 436 (1970) Cited 3,523 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a defendant acquitted of robbing one participant at a poker game from being prosecuted for robbing any of the other participants at the same game
Arizona v. California
530 U.S. 392 (2000) Cited 834 times
Holding that res judicata did not bar certain claims stemming from reservation boundary disputes
Unitherm Food v. Swifteckrich
546 U.S. 394 (2006) Cited 468 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "since respondent failed to renew its preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b), there was no basis for review of respondent's sufficiency of the evidence challenge in the Court of Appeals"
Section 1291 - Final decisions of district courts
28 U.S.C. § 1291 Cited 88,771 times 138 Legal Analyses
Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"
Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 Cited 13,604 times 62 Legal Analyses
Allowing "renewed motion"
Section 292 - False marking
35 U.S.C. § 292 Cited 565 times 61 Legal Analyses
Providing cause of action and share of recovery against a person falsely marking patented articles

United States of America et al v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.

114 Cited authorities

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”

Holding that adequate representation requires that "[t]he interests of the nonparty and her representative are aligned" and "the party understood herself to be acting in a representative capacity."

Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)

Holding "that petitioner's state-court judgment in litigation [had] the same claim preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the . . . state courts"

Holding that there was "jurisdiction regardless of the correctness of the removal" because the "amended complaint alleged ERISA violations, over which the federal courts have jurisdiction"

Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a defendant acquitted of robbing one participant at a poker game from being prosecuted for robbing any of the other participants at the same game

Holding that res judicata did not bar certain claims stemming from reservation boundary disputes

Holding that "since respondent failed to renew its preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b), there was no basis for review of respondent's sufficiency of the evidence challenge in the Court of Appeals"

Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"

Allowing "renewed motion"

Providing cause of action and share of recovery against a person falsely marking patented articles