35 Cited authorities

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,257 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.
302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,179 times
Holding that "[a]n employee is not required to use any particular language when requesting an accommodation but need only inform the employer of the need for an adjustment due to a medical condition." (cleaned up)
Schweiker v. Hansen
450 U.S. 785 (1981) Cited 714 times
Holding that a Social Security manual did not bind the Social Security Administration because it is not a regulation and has “no legal force”
Kaiser Aluminum, Etc. v. Avondale Shipyards
677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1982) Cited 1,986 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, when a counterclaim showed that a contract was executed outside the limitations period, the "counterclaim on its face appears to reveal the existence of an affirmative defense to it, which would make the granting of a Rule 12(b) dismissal proper"
Costello v. United States
365 U.S. 265 (1961) Cited 1,004 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding a dismissal for failure to file an affidavit of good cause would be "without prejudice" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because it was not decided on the merits and referring to the rule as "jurisdictional"
U.S. v. Summerlin
310 U.S. 414 (1940) Cited 598 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the United States is not bound by state statutes of limitation when enforcing delinquent tax liabilities
In re Rawson Food Service, Inc.
846 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1988) Cited 272 times
Holding that lack of possession in a reclamation case is not an affirmative defense because "possession is an integral element of a seller's reclamation claim" thus the so-called affirmative defense merely denies an element of the prima facie case
S.E.C. v. Blavin
760 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1985) Cited 239 times
Holding that the court possesses the equitable power to grant disgorgement of "a sum of money equal to all the illegal payments received"
Clark v. Milam
152 F.R.D. 66 (S.D.W. Va. 1993) Cited 140 times
Granting motion to strike as superfluous several "affirmative defenses [which] are in fact merely denials of Plaintiff's allegations"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Rind
991 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 105 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that punitive damage award would be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy under § 523
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 351,086 times 937 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 70,485 times 126 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 36,298 times 145 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
Section 78aa - Jurisdiction of offenses and suits
15 U.S.C. § 78aa Cited 2,334 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting "[t]he district courts of the United States . . . exclusive jurisdiction [over] violations of [the Exchange Act of 1934] or the rules and regulations thereunder, and of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by [the Exchange Act of 1934] or the rules and regulations thereunder."
Section 78u - Investigations and actions
15 U.S.C. § 78u Cited 2,303 times 85 Legal Analyses
Granting the SEC the power to seek civil penalties for violations of the Exchange Act
Section 77v - Jurisdiction of offenses and suits
15 U.S.C. § 77v Cited 1,053 times 28 Legal Analyses
Granting "concurrent" jurisdiction

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jantzen et al

35 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding that "[a]n employee is not required to use any particular language when requesting an accommodation but need only inform the employer of the need for an adjustment due to a medical condition." (cleaned up)

Holding that a Social Security manual did not bind the Social Security Administration because it is not a regulation and has “no legal force”

Holding that, when a counterclaim showed that a contract was executed outside the limitations period, the "counterclaim on its face appears to reveal the existence of an affirmative defense to it, which would make the granting of a Rule 12(b) dismissal proper"

Holding a dismissal for failure to file an affidavit of good cause would be "without prejudice" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because it was not decided on the merits and referring to the rule as "jurisdictional"

Holding that the United States is not bound by state statutes of limitation when enforcing delinquent tax liabilities

Holding that lack of possession in a reclamation case is not an affirmative defense because "possession is an integral element of a seller's reclamation claim" thus the so-called affirmative defense merely denies an element of the prima facie case

Holding that the court possesses the equitable power to grant disgorgement of "a sum of money equal to all the illegal payments received"

Granting motion to strike as superfluous several "affirmative defenses [which] are in fact merely denials of Plaintiff's allegations"

Holding that punitive damage award would be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy under § 523

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Granting the SEC the power to seek civil penalties for violations of the Exchange Act

Granting "concurrent" jurisdiction