Notes of Decisions
Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 2011).
· cites it 6× “The Panel further observed that the District Court’s certification order contravened the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (b), by extending antitrust remedies not rooted in state substantive law to putative class members.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).
· cites it 3× “Because Rule 23 cannot be interpreted to “abridge, enlarge or modify any sub stantive right,” 28 U. S. C. §2072 (b), a class cannot be certified on the premise that Wal-Mart will not be entitled to litigate its statutory de fenses to individual claims.”
Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590 (3rd Cir. 2010).
· cites it 8× “See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072 , 2074. [4] Thus, when Congress enacted the Clarification Act and specified that it applied to "any action, other than an action which has become final," Pub.”
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
· cites it 4× “" When we adopted Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure we delayed, as required by law, their effective date until 90 days after they were "reported to Congress by the Chief Justice," 28 U. S. C. § 2072 , so that Congress might consider whether it wished to…”
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 7× “" 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (b). . The dissent also argues that Wal-Mart "has a statutory right, recognized by the Supreme Court, to prove that its actions against individual employees were not discriminatory,” which the dissent understands to mean that the district “court must allow up…”
Washington v. Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 6× “2007) (en banc) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (a)). The Rules Enabling Act also established a committee to evaluate and propose amendments to the Rules.”
O'NEAL v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “The Sixth Circuit held that Rule 24(a)(5) conflicts with § 1915(a)(3), but that the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (b), [3] requires courts to follow Rule 24(a)(5) notwithstanding this conflict.”
Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996).
· cites it 6× “We see no reason why the prescription governing time for service [17] is not, as *670 is the whole of Rule 4, a nonjurisdictional rule governing "practice and procedure" in federal cases, see 28 U. S. C. § 2072 (a), consistent with the Rules Enabling Act and Federal Rule 82, and…”
San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 6× “Under the Rules Enabling Act, "The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals," 28…”
Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996).
· cites it 4× “§ 1652 , reads: "The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they…”
Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P. A. v. Allstate Ins., 559 U.S. 393 (2010).
· cites it 21× “Affirm ing, the Second Circuit acknowledged that a Federal Rule adopted in compliance with the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U. S. C. §2072 , would control if it conflicted with §901(b), but held there was no conflict be cause §901(b) and Rule 23 address different issues—eligibility of…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 2072(a) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) — 6 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.