In Re the Regents of the University of California (1992)
green
· 46 citation events
across 9 courts.
Showing the 18 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199320092026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
Id., at 1134 , 964 F.2d 1128 , 22 USPQ2d at 1754.
green
Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, and the Regents of the University of California (1993)
Pending litigation, summarized in In re Regents of the University of California, 964 F.2d 1128, 1130-31 , 22 USPQ2d 1748, 1750-51 (Fed.Cir. 1992), included five lawsuits. 3 .
See In re Regents of Univ. of California, 964 F.2d 1128, 1133 (Fed.
“The considerations pertinent to a change of venue under § 1404(a) are not the same as those pertinent to coordination of pretrial proceedings in multiple cases involving common parties [under Section 1407].”
green
In Re Princo Corporation (2007)
We have established that issues that would be “properly before the Federal Circuit on appeal[ ] are no less within our jurisdiction when raised by extraordinary writ.” In re Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 964 F.2d 1128, 1130 (Fed.Cir.1992).
green
Embury v. King (2004)
In re Regents of Univ. of Cal., 964 F.2d 1128, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992). .
green
Embury v. King (2004)
III, § 2 16 In re Regents of Univ. of Cal., 964 F.2d 1128, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992). 17 Id. at 1135 . 18 Estes v. Wyo.
green
In Re the Regents of the University of California (1996)
In re The Regents of the University of California, 964 F.2d 1128, 1135 , 22 USPQ2d 1748, 1754 (Fed.Cir.1992).
green
Wilmington Sec. v. Welch (1996)
Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496-97 (1933) (pre-Federal Rules case holding that "consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another"); In re Food Lion, 73 F.3d 528 , 533 (4th Cir.1996) (multi district case in which separate appeals were filed and subsequently consolidated for purposes of appeal; court note…
The purpose of the MDL statute is to consolidate and coordinate pretrial proceedings in one court to "avoidf] ... conflicting and duplicative pretrial demands on parties and witnesses in related cases.” In re Regents of Univ. of Cal., 964 F.2d 1128, 1131 (Fed.Cir.1992).
green
Miller Pipeline Corp. v. British Gas Plc (1995)
See also Pure Oil v. Suarez, 384 U.S. 202 , 86 S.Ct. 1394 , 16 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966) (special venue provisions [such as section 22] supplement rather than pre-empt general venue statutes [such as section 1391(d) ]); VE Holding Corp v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed.Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 922 , 111 S.Ct. 1315 , 113 L.Ed.2d 248 (1991); In re Regents of University of California, 964 F.2d 1128, 1132 (Fed.Cir.1992).
green
Genentech, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, and Eli Lilly and Company, and United States, Int… (1998)
See In re Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 964 F.2d 1128 , 22 USPQ2d 1748 (Fed.Cir.1992) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment did not shield a state from multidistrict procedures under the Federal Rules when the state was otherwise properly before the federal courts).
See In re Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 964 F.2d 1128 , 22 USPQ2d 1748 (Fed.Cir.1992) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment did not shield a state from multidistrict procedures under the Federal Rules when the state was otherwise properly before the federal courts).
green
Lights of America, Incorporated, a California Corporation v. United States District Court for the Central Dis… (1997)
See, e.g., In re Regents of Univ. of Calif., 964 F.2d 1128, 1130 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“The Federal Circuit’s authority in extraordinary writ .is beyond challenge.
green
In the Matter of Bbc International, Ltd. (1996)
See In re Regents of the University of California, 964 F.2d 1128 (Fed.Cir.1992) (asserting authority to issue mandamus to require transfer of pending ease from one district to another, but denying petition on discretionary grounds).
green
Wilson v. DIRECTBUY, INC. (2011)
See, e.g., In Re Regents of University of California, 964 F.2d 1128, 1133 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“The considerations pertinent to a change of venue under § 1404(a) are not the same as those pertinent to coordination of pretrial proceedings in multiple cases involving common parties.”).
green
In Re Radioshack Corp.\ Erisa\" Litigation" (2007)
See In re Regents of University of California, 964 F.2d 1128, 1133 (Fed.Cir. 1992) (denying petition for extraordinary writ to vacate Panel order transferring actions pursuant to Section 1407).
denying petition for extraordinary writ to vacate Panel order transferring actions pursuant to Section 1407
See. e.g., In re Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 964 F.2d 1128, 1134-35 (Fed.Cir.1992) (accepting without questioning the Regents’ ability to waive immunity and initiate a patent suit in federal court); In re Holoholo, 512 F.Supp. 889, 901-02 (D.Haw.1981) (finding that the Regents waived immunity by entering a government contract contemplating suit in federal court).
See In re Recombinant DNA Technology Patent and Contract Litig., Docket No. 912 (J.P.M.L., Feb. 19, 1992), aff'd, In re Regents of the Univ. of Cal, 964 F.2d 1128 (Fed.Cir.1992).