How cited: Lawson v. FMR LLC · Go Syfert

Lawson v. FMR LLC (2010)

green · 40 citation events across 7 courts. Showing the 9 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201020182026
Rule Authority · 1st Cir. · 6 citations in this opinion
Lawson v. FMR LLC, 724 F.Supp.2d 141, 151 (D.Mass.2010).
green Lawson v. FMR, LLC (2021)
Rule Authority · D. Mass. · 3 citations in this opinion
Lawson v. FMR LLC, 724 F. Supp. 2d 141, 162 (D.
Rule Authority · D. Minnesota · 2 citations in this opinion
Apr. 28, 2011); Lawson v. FMR LLC, 724 F.Supp.2d 141, 151 (D.Mass.2010) ("To be sure, this may lead to duplication of factfind-ing by the DOL and the federal courts, but that repetition was clearly contemplated as possible by the statute's general provision for ‘de novo review.' "), rev’d on other grounds, 670 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.2012), rev’d, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 1158 , 188 L.Ed.2d 158 (2014). .
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Ambiguity in the Statutory Text As one district court observed, “the statutory text [was] far from pellucid.” Lawson v. FMR LLC, 724 F.Supp.2d 141, 152-53 (D.Mass.2010), motion to certify appeal granted, 724 F.Supp.2d 167 (D.Mass.2010), rev’d in part, 670 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.2012).
green Lawson v. FMR LLC (2014)
Cited · SCOTUS · signal: see
See n. 6, supra . 9 Recognizing that the majority's reading would lead to a "notably expansive scope untethered to the purpose of the statute," the District Court in this case sought to impose an extratextual limiting principle under which an employee who reports fraud is entitled to protection only if her report "relat[es] to fraud against shareholders." 724 F.Supp.2d 141 , 160 (Mass.2010).
Cited (see also) · Wash. · signal: see also
Wash. Jan. 15, 2009) (court order) (noting that SOX provided an adequate means for promoting the public policy); see also Lawson v. FMR LLC, 724 F. Supp. 2d 141, 165-66 (D.
Cited (see also) · Wash. · signal: see also
Wash. Jan. 15, 2009) (court order) (noting that SOX provided an adequate means for promoting the public policy); see also Lawson v. FMR LLC, 724 F. Supp. 2d 141, 165-66 (D.
green Wong v. CKX, Inc. (2012)
Cited (see also) · S.D.N.Y. · signal: see also
Id.; see also Lawson v. FMR LLC, 724 F.Supp.2d 141, 149-50 (D.Mass.2010), rev’d in part on different grounds by, 670 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.2012); Hanna v. WCI Cmtys., Inc., 348 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1328 (S.D.Fla.2004) (“[A]s a matter of law, ... the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(l)(B) allows [a complainant] to bring [a] whistle-blower complaint in [federal] court because the DOL ‘ha[d] not issued a final decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint.’ ”) (alteration…
Cited · D. Mass. · signal: see
See Lawson v. FMR L.L.C., 724 F.Supp.2d 141, 151-52 (D.Mass.2010), rev’d on other grounds, Lawson v. FMR L.L.C., 670 F.3d 61, 82-83 (1st Cir.2012); Nixon v. Richey, 513 F.2d 430, 438 (D.C.Cir.1975) ("The federal rule is that pendency of an appeal does not suspend the operation of a final judgment for purposes of collateral estoppel, except where appellate review constitutes a trial de novo.”) (citing Huron Holding Corp. v. Lincoln Mine Operating Co., 312 U.S. 183, 188-89 , 6…