1,000+ Cases found with keyword search

  1. check_box_outline_blank

    Pace v. Diguglielmo

    544 U.S. 408 (2005)   Cited 8,561 times   7 Legal Analyses   
    Holding that a five-month delay demonstrated a lack of diligence
    The dissent suggests that our conclusion in Artuz, that state procedural bars "prescrib[ing] a rule of decision for a court" confronted with certain claims previously adjudicated or not properly presented are not "filing" conditions, requires the conclusion that the time limit at issue here also is not a "filing" condition. Post, at 425-426; see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U. S., at 10-11 (discussing N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law §§ 440.10(2)(a) and (c) (McKinney 1994)). The dissent ignores the fact that Artuz itself distinguished between time limits and procedural bars. 531 U. S., at 8-10. For purposes of determining what are "filing" conditions, there is an obvious distinction between time limits, which go to the very initiation of a petition and a court's ability to consider that petition, and the type of "rule of decision" procedural bars at issue in Artuz, which go to the ability to obtain relief. Far from requiring "verbal gymnastics," it must be the case that a petition that cannot even be initiated or considered due to the failure to include a timely claim is not "properly filed." Id., at 10.
  2. check_box_outline_blank

    United States v. Frady

    456 U.S. 152 (1982)   Cited 8,739 times   2 Legal Analyses   
    Holding that the plain-error doctrine applies in those circumstances in which, absent appellate intervention, a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result
    The events leading up to the killing began at about 4:30 p. m. on March 13, 1963, when two women saw Frady drive slowly by Bennett's house in an old car. Later, at about 7:00 p. m., Frady, accompanied by Richard Gordon and Gordon's friend, Elizabeth Ryder, returned to the same block. On this second trip, Ryder overheard Frady say "something about that is the house over there," at which point Frady and Gordon looked in the direction of the victim's house.
  3. check_box_outline_blank

    Gonzalez v. Crosby

    545 U.S. 524 (2005)   Cited 3,959 times   5 Legal Analyses   
    Holding that a motion that "attacks the federal court's previous resolution of a [habeas] claim on the merits" is subject to the restrictions on second or successive motions
    It is also worth noting that Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U. S. 4 (2000), was decided only seven months after petitioner's habeas judgment became final. In cases where significant time has elapsed between a habeas judgment and the relevant change in procedural law, it would be within a district court's discretion to leave such a judgment in repose.
  4. check_box_outline_blank

    Laster v. City of Kalamazoo

    746 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2014)   Cited 335 times   1 Legal Analyses   
    Holding that protected activity includes "not only the filing of formal discrimination charges with the EEOC, but also complaints to management and less formal protests of discriminatory employment practices"
    9. Reprimand for Failure to Fill Air Bottle. In May 2010, Plaintiff inadvertently failed to fill a Scott air bottle during his inspection of a fire truck. The operator who noticed Plaintiff's small error reported the offense, and Plaintiff was reprimanded. Typically, when an equipment operator finds something that needs attention ( e.g., top off an air bottle), it is customary practice “to simply perform the duty missed/neglected by the prior shift without the necessity of formally reporting said offense to superior officials.” However, the employee who noticed Plaintiff's error reported the offense because he had been instructed to “report anything he saw [Plaintiff] doing wrong to a supervisor immediately.” According to Union Representative Laura Misner, it “appeared that [Plaintiff] was being singled-out for formal reprimand for failure to comply with this policy/procedure or for any future incidents which may be routinelyand customarily ignored by fellow KDPS ... employees.”
  5. check_box_outline_blank

    Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 3,495 times   398 Legal Analyses   
    Holding in Rule 23(2) 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"
    Joseph M. Sellers, Christine E. Webber, Jenny R. Yang, Kalpana Kotagal, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, D.C., Brad Seligman, Jocelyn D. Larkin, The Impact Fund, Berkeley, CA, Steven Stemerman, Elizabeth A. Lawrence, Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Arcelia Hurtado, Noreen Farell, Equal Rights Advocates, San Francisco, CA, Sheila Y. Thomas, Law Office of Sheila Thomas, Oakland, CA, Stephen Tinkler, The Tinkler Law Firm, Santa Fe, NM, Merit Bennett, The Bennett Firm, Santa Fe, NM, Debra Gardner, Baltimore, MD, Shauna Marshall, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
  6. check_box_outline_blank

    Ealy v. Commissioner of Social Security

    594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,366 times   
    Holding that the ALJ's hypothetical did not accurately portray a claimant's abilities by indicating that he could perform "simple, repetitive tasks" without specifying that he was limited to doing so in "two-hour segments over an eight-hour day where speed was not critical."
    The Social Security Administration gives the most weight to opinions from a claimant's treating source; accordingly, an ALJ is procedurally required to "give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the claimant's] treating source's opinion." Id. However, this requirement only applies to treating sources. Id. at 876. With regard to nontreating, but examining, sources, the agency will simply "[g]enerally [] give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the opinion of a source who has not examined" him. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1); see also Smith, 482 F.3d at 875. Because Dr. Bennett should not have been afforded controlling weight, in order to determine how much weight to give Dr. Bennett's opinion, the ALJ should consider factors including the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the evidence that the physician offered in support of her opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and whether the physician was practicing in her specialty. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d).
  7. check_box_outline_blank

    Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014)   Cited 1,127 times   40 Legal Analyses   
    Holding injured party who was not direct competitor of defendant may have statutory standing to bring unfair competition claim
    We have said, in the APA context, that the test is not “ ‘especially demanding,’ ” Match–E–Be–Nash–She–Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. ––––, ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 2210, 183 L.Ed.2d 211 (2012). In that context we have often “conspicuously included the word ‘arguably’ in the test to indicate that the benefit of any doubt goes to the plaintiff,” and have said that the test “forecloses suit only when a plaintiff's ‘interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that’ ” Congress authorized that plaintiff to sue. Id., at ––––, 132 S.Ct., at 2210. That lenient approach is an appropriate means of preserving the flexibility of the APA's omnibus judicial-review provision, which permits suit for violations of numerous statutes of varying character that do not themselves include causes of action for judicial review. “We have made clear, however, that the breadth of the zone of interests varies according to the provisions of law at issue, so that what comes within the zone of interests of a statute for purposes of obtaining judicial review of administrative action under the ‘...
  8. check_box_outline_blank

    Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

    534 U.S. 506 (2002)   Cited 11,878 times   18 Legal Analyses   
    Holding that "[t]he prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas... is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement"
    The majority of Courts of Appeals have held that a plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), in order to survive a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1114 (CADC 2000); Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (CA7 1998); Ring v. First Interstate Mortgage, Inc., 984 F.2d 924 (CA8 1993). Others, however, maintain that a complaint must contain factual allegations that support each element of a prima facie case. In addition to the case below, see Jackson v. Columbus, 194 F.3d 737, 751 (CA6 1999).
  9. check_box_outline_blank

    Ankenbrandt v. Richards

    504 U.S. 689 (1992)   Cited 1,201 times   1 Legal Analyses   
    Holding Younger abstention clearly erroneous “bsent any pending proceeding in state tribunals”
    Although In re Burrus technically did not involve a construction of the diversity statute, as we understand Barber to have done, its statement that "[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States, and not to the laws of the United States," id., at 593-594, has been interpreted by the federal courts to apply with equal vigor in suits brought pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Bennett v. Bennett, 221 U.S.App.D.C. 90, 93, 682 F.2d 1039, 1042 (1982); Solomon v. Solomon, 516 F.2d 1018, 1025 (CA3 1975); Hernstadt v. Hernstadt, 373 F.2d 316, 317 (CA2 1967); see generally 13B C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3609, pp. 477-479, nn. 28-32 (1984). This application is consistent with Barber's directive to limit federal courts' exercise of diversity jurisdiction over suits for divorce and alimony decrees. See Barber, 21 How. at 584. We conclude, therefore, that the domestic relations exception, as articulated by this Court since Barber, divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees. Given the long passage of...
  10. check_box_outline_blank

    Reves v. Ernst Young

    507 U.S. 170 (1993)   Cited 1,144 times   1 Legal Analyses   
    Holding that the defendant "participates" if he "directs" the pattern of racketeering activity
    It was only by ignoring these crucial concessions, and the evidence that obviously prompted them, that the Court of Appeals could describe Arthur Young's involvement with the Co-op as "limited to the audits, meetings with the Board of Directors to explain the audits, and presentations at the annual meetings." 937 F.2d, at 1324. And only then could the court have ruled that, "as a matter of law, Arthur Young's involvement with the Co-op did not rise to the level required for a RICO violation," which it described (quoting Bennett v. Berg, 710 F.2d 1361 (CA8 1983)) as requiring only "some participation in the operation or management of the enterprise itself." 937 F.2d, at 1324 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Access all results
Casetext free trial sign up includes:
Unlimited legal research, no out of plan charges
Federal case law, statutes, and regulations
All 50 state case law and statutes
 CARA A.I. contextual search
Citator: Red flags on all overturned cases
Bankruptcy and PTAB
Unique databases: Holdings and Black Letter Law
How cited functionality
Customer Support