53 Cited authorities

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."
United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa
559 U.S. 260 (2010) Cited 1,843 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that rule 60(b) applies "in the rare instance where a judgment is premised . . . on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard"
Jenkins v. McKeithen
395 U.S. 411 (1969) Cited 7,593 times
Holding that in 12(b) motions, material allegations are taken as true and liberally construed in favor of non-moving party
U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens
460 U.S. 711 (1983) Cited 2,401 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that because "[t]here will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony to the employer's mental process," evidence of the employer's discriminatory attitude in general is relevant and admissible to prove discrimination
Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.
456 U.S. 461 (1982) Cited 2,471 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "full and fair opportunity to litigate" is satisfied by minimum procedural requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,788 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
Baker v. General Motors Corp.
522 U.S. 222 (1998) Cited 503 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Michigan judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit because it impermissibly interfered with Missouri's control of litigation brought by parties who were not before the Michigan court
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
Haring v. Prosise
462 U.S. 306 (1983) Cited 735 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding a valid guilty plea "results in the defendant's loss of any meaningful opportunity he might otherwise have had to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment"
Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.
485 U.S. 80 (1988) Cited 614 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that procedural due process prevents a court from entering judgment against a party "without notice or service"
Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Cited 53,572 times 146 Legal Analyses
Granting relief from the operation of a judgment
Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 803 Cited 12,664 times 85 Legal Analyses
Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities
Section 1605 - General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state
28 U.S.C. § 1605 Cited 1,896 times 47 Legal Analyses
Adopting the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991
Section 1605A - Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state
28 U.S.C. § 1605A Cited 481 times 12 Legal Analyses
Adopting definition of "material support or resources" found in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A

Vera v. The Republic of Cuba

53 Cited authorities

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 rule 60(b) applies "in the rare instance where a judgment is premised . . . on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard"

Holding that in 12(b) motions, material allegations are taken as true and liberally construed in favor of non-moving party

Holding that because "[t]here will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony to the employer's mental process," evidence of the employer's discriminatory attitude in general is relevant and admissible to prove discrimination

Holding that "full and fair opportunity to litigate" is satisfied by minimum procedural requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment

Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

Holding that a Michigan judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit because it impermissibly interfered with Missouri's control of litigation brought by parties who were not before the Michigan court

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

Holding a valid guilty plea "results in the defendant's loss of any meaningful opportunity he might otherwise have had to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment"

Holding that procedural due process prevents a court from entering judgment against a party "without notice or service"

Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

Adopting the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991

Adopting definition of "material support or resources" found in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A