§Why CasetextPricing

ZUZA v. OFFICE OF THE HIGH REPRESENTAITVE et al

RESPONSE re Notice

75 Cited authorities

  1. Scott v. Harris

    550 U.S. 372 (2007)   Cited 12,135 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if opposing parties tell two different versions of the facts, and one is blatantly contradicted by the record, a court should not adopt that version of the facts in ruling on a motion for summary judgment

  2. District of Columbia et al. v. Heller

    554 U.S. 570 (2008)   Cited 3,653 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding it irrelevant to the constitutionality of D.C.'s "handgun" ban that the law allowed citizens the possession of substitutes, like "long guns"

  3. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe

    401 U.S. 402 (1971)   Cited 5,993 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a decision is committed to agency discretion when there is "no law to apply"

  4. King v. Burwell

    574 U.S. 988 (2015)   Cited 683 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress did not delegate health insurance policy to Internal Revenue Service

  5. Arizona v. Hicks

    480 U.S. 321 (1987)   Cited 1,347 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that moving stereo equipment in plain view a “few inches” to record the equipment's serial numbers constituted a search

  6. Samantar v. Yousuf et al.

    560 U.S. 305 (2010)   Cited 381 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the common law, rather than the FSIA, governs the immunity of foreign officials

  7. Burlington Truck Lines v. U.S.

    371 U.S. 156 (1962)   Cited 1,954 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a rule invalid under the APA where "the Commission made no findings specifically directed to the choice between two vastly different remedies with vastly different consequences to the carriers and the public . . . [and failed to] articulate any rational connection between the facts found and the choice made"

  8. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A.

    517 U.S. 735 (1996)   Cited 485 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that neither an agency's delay in promulgating a regulation nor the fact that "it was litigation which disclosed the need for the regulation" affects the court's deference to the agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute as embodied in such regulations

  9. Republic of Austria v. Altmann

    541 U.S. 677 (2004)   Cited 324 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that FSIA can be retroactive in application

  10. Eldred v. Ashcroft

    537 U.S. 186 (2003)   Cited 192 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “every idea, theory, and fact in a copyrighted work becomes instantly available for public exploitation at the moment of publication.”

  11. 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

  12. Section 1602 - Findings and declaration of purpose

    28 U.S.C. § 1602   Cited 1,448 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth Congressional findings and the purposes of FSIA

  13. Section 517 - Interests of United States in pending suits

    28 U.S.C. § 517   Cited 385 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Noting that lawyers designated by the Attorney General shall "attend to the interests of the United States"

  14. Section 288e - Personnel entitled to benefits

    22 U.S.C. § 288e   Cited 7 times

    (a) Notification to and acceptance by Secretary of State of personnel No person shall be entitled to the benefits of this subchapter, unless he (1) shall have been duly notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State as a representative, officer, or employee; or (2) shall have been designated by the Secretary of State, prior to formal notification and acceptance, as a prospective representative, officer, or employee; or (3) is a member of the family or suite, or servant, of one of the foregoing

  15. Section 288f-7 - Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the International Civilian Office in Kosovo; extension of privileges, exemptions, and immunities

    22 U.S.C. § 288f-7   Cited 3 times

    The provisions of this subchapter may be extended to the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (and to its officers and employees) or the International Civilian Office in Kosovo (and to its officers and employees) in the same manner, to the same extent, and subject to the same conditions, as such provisions may be extended to a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing