green
Positive treatment
25.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Resh, Inc v. Skimlite Manufacturing Inc
No. 101-2). 20 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 21 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 22 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 24 However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 25 “tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 26 F.3d 1092…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cuviello v. City of Belmont
Id. (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 235 ). 25 Regarding the second prong, “clearly established law should not be defined at a high level of 26 generality,” but instead “must be particularized to the facts of the case.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 27 548, 552 (2017) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose
No. 173-1. 20 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 21 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 22 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 24 However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 25 “tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 26 F.3d 1092,…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation
FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 27 38 (2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reddy Annappareddy v. Catherine Pascale
“The focus of the special-factors inquiry is ‘whether the Judiciary is well suited, absent congressional action or instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.’” Earle, 2021 WL 896399 , at *3 (quoting Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 27 at 1858).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
La Fosse v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.
Cty., 137 S. Ct. 27 1773, 1780 (2017), precludes the exercise of jurisdiction over claims made solely by out-of-state named class members.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Finjan LLC v. Sonicwall, Inc.
FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 27 38 (2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bolden v. Arana
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 27 548, 552 (2017) (per curiam); Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 , 741 (2011) (rejecting the 1 supported a finding that the right not to be arrested as a material witness in order to be 2 investigated or preemptively detained was clearly established law); see, e.g., Kisela v. 3 Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1154-55 (2018) (per curiam) (officer entitled to qualified 4 immunity for shooting a woman who was armed with a large knife, was ignoring officers’ 5 orders to drop the weapon, and was within striking distance of her housemate; prior 6 cases on excessive force …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kannan v. Apple Inc.
FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 27 38 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. United States Marshals
See Hernandez, 137 S. Ct. at 27 2007 (“[D]isposing of a Bivens claim by resolving the constitutional question, while 28 assuming the existence of a Bivens remedy—is appropriate in many cases.”); see also 1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (assuming, without deciding, that the plaintiff’s 2 claim was an actionable Bivens claim, and dismissing claim for failure to sufficiently plead 3 a constitutional violation). 4 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a plausible claim that his fifth amendment due 5 process right was violated by Defendants’ conduct.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dave Andrae TAYLOR
v.
UNITED STATES.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 15–9262..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Aug 26, 2016.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Consideration, Took.
Published
Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.