Datasets:

coastalcph

/

lex_glue

like 47

[ "holding that dismissal pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 56 did not violate the seventh amendment", "holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for lack of jurisdiction", "holding defendant to a preference action has a right to a jury trial pursuant to the seventh amendment of the united states constitution but that right can be waived by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings", "holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to rule 12b6 because as a matter of law complaint faded to present an issue for trial", "holding that a court should not dismiss a complaint pursuant to rule 12b6 for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief " ]

[ "holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid when defendant was required to pick up suitcase containing contraband at airport and there was no assurance at time warrant was issued that defendant would take suitcase to his home", "holding anticipatory warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause because at time warrant was issued the contraband was not on a sure course to the place to be searched and there was no assurance defendant would take contraband to that place", "holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home", "holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because affidavit provided no assurance that defendant would take package to his home after collecting it at the airport despite fact that warrant contained condition that it was not to be executed until package arrived at defendants house", "holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because contraband was picked up by defendant rather than being delivered to his home and affidavit failed to provide facts establishing a nexus between contraband and defendants home" ]

[ "holding that something more than a mere error of law is required to constitute misconduct", "holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion", "holding that more than notice to a defendant is required", "recognizing that if there is evidence upon which one may reasonably infer an element of the crime the evidence is sufficient to sustain that element and where reasonable minds could differ the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction", "holding that more than mere negligence in losing or destroying evidence is required to sustain an inference of consciousness of a weak case" ]

[ "holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state", "holding that fraudulent joinder required a finding that either there was no possibility that the plaintiff could prove a cause of action against the resident defendant or that the plaintiff fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts in order to subject that resident defendant to the jurisdiction of the state court", "holding that posting of infringing copyrighted material may give rise to jurisdiction where the victiimplaintiff was a resident of the forum state", "recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties", "holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims" ]

[ "holding that disagreements over whether to call certain witnesses did not constitute a conflict of interest", "holding that prosecutor free to comment on defendants failure to call certain witnesses or present certain testimony", "holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence", "holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense", "holding a prosecutor may not comment on a defendants silence" ]

[ "holding that filing of charges by employer constituted retaliatory act", "holding that portion of civil judg ment awarded under the idaho workmans compensation act was nondischargeable", "holding that liquidated damages under fair labor standards act constitutes compensation for the retention of a workmans pay which might result in damages too obscure and difficult of proof for estimate other than by liquidated damages", "holding that texas cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws", "holding that filing of request for lump sum settlement constituted institution of a proceeding under the texas workmans compensation act" ]

[ "holding equivalent automatic license revocation provision of colorado real estate statute unconstitutional", "holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them", "holding that it is not", "holding pennsylvania replevin statute unconstitutional", "holding that a statute is unconstitutional if it clearly contravenes a constitutional provision" ]

[ "holding construction company had actual notice of dangerous condition that its employees created", "holding that when a possessor knows that a dangerous condition frequently reoccurs plaintiffs had a right to go to the jury on the issue of defendants negligence even where plaintiffs could not show how long the condition remained on the stairs", "holding that the negligent placement of a folding room partition at the foot of a ladder on which plaintiff was working created a physical deficiency which constituted a dangerous condition", "holding that immunity is not waived for injury or death caused by negligent supervision", "holding that the negligent failure to remove debris on grounds contributed to creating a dangerous condition which resulted in death when debris was flung by lawn mower" ]

[ "holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings", "holding that an appeal to an agency review board would be futile because the board lacked authority to invalidate ordinance as requested", "holding that the board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing an untimely appeal where the appellant failed to respond to a board order to show cause", "holding that where approval of the board of directors was not formally requested a demand would have been futile for it could hardly be expected that if approval of the board of directors were sought defendant who controlled 50 of the board would have authorized the action against himself", "holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board" ]

[ "holding that a partner owes a duty to all other partners to exercise the utmost good faith fairness and loyalty", "holding when an insurers alleged breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing toward its insured involves facts and circumstances within the common knowledge or ordinary experience of an average juror an insured need not introduce expert testimony to establish a bad faith claim", "holding that an insurer has a duty to act with the utmost good faith towards its insured", "holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith", "holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer" ]

[ "holding that an illegal arrest occurred when the defendant was transported without probable cause from his home to the police station for fingerprinting and that the line is crossed when the police without probable cause or a warrant forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station where he is detained although briefly for investigative purposes", "holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate legitimate expectation of privacy where he could not show that he had the owners permission to use the car or demonstrate prior use or control of the car", "holding that to convict a defendant of home invasion pursuant to la rs 14628 the state is required to prove that he entered a dwelling owned by another without permission that the dwelling was used in whole or in part as a home that a person was present when he made the unauthorized entry and that he had the intent to use force or violence upon the person or to vandalize deface or damage the property", "holding tila applies only to credit transactions secured by real or personal property used or expected to be used as the principal dwelling of the debtor", "holding there was enough evidence to find the defendant abandoned his child when he claimed to have knowledge of cpss involvement he admitted that for periods of two years and six months he did not attempt any contact with his child and from the date he canceled a home study until the petition was filed he did not attempt to contact the child or cps or provide support even when he was out of jail" ]

[ "holding that representations made by the defendant during a plea hearing carry a strong presumption of verity", "holding that a defendant is bound by representations made during a guilty plea absent a valid reason for controverting those statements", "holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied", "holding that absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by his representations made during a plea colloquy", "holding that whether adverse possession was proven by clear and convincing evidence is a factual determination made by the chancellor" ]

[ "holding that a five month delay is unreasonable", "holding that 11 month delay in reversing wrongful zoning board decision did not deprive plaintiff of due process", "holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable", "holding that discretion of zoning board was not sufficiently circumscribed to support substantive due process claim", "holding that a five month delay was unreasonable" ]

[ "holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable", "holding rehabilitation act applicable", "holding that plaintiffs were prevailing parties under 42 usc section 1988 despite dismissal of the appeal as moot and vacation of the district court judgment", "holding that standards used in section 1988 cases are applicable to determine prevailing party under section 505b of the rehabilitation act of 1973", "holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act" ]

[ "holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding", "holding that in reviewing trial courts ruling on habeas corpus petition reviewing court must defer to all of trial courts implied factual findings supported by record", "holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record", "holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress", "holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion" ]

[ "holding that diversity jurisdiction was not established by a statecourt order that provided only that the plaintiffs claims against a nondiverse defendant be and hereby are severed from this action", "holding that in order for a defendant to remove a case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction there must be complete diversity of citizenship both at the time that the case is commenced and at the time that the notice of removal is filed", "holding that because there was complete diversity when the action commenced diversity jurisdiction was not defeated by the addition of a nondiverse plaintiff which was not indispensable", "holding diversity jurisdiction was collusively obtained because the transferor retained a onehalf interest in the outcome of the litigation and was an indispensable party but for the assignment", "holding that although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of immunity the analysis of citizenship determinations for eleventh amendment immunity and diversity jurisdiction are the same" ]

[ "holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building", "holding that a roommate with shared access to anothers computer has common authority over the computer and can grant consent to search", "holding that an agents use of filesharing program to access child pornography files on the defendants computer did not constitute an illegal warrantless search because the defendant had made those files accessible to others and thus lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in files", "holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable", "holding that where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer" ]

[ "holding that irreparable injury exists in a trademark case when the party seeking the injunction shows that it will lose control over the reputation of its trademark pending trial", "holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract", "holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law", "holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause", "recognizing that generic marks are not subject to trademark protection" ]

[ "holding that debtors daughter was not liable under fraudulent transfer law for the amount her parents paid for her wedding prepetition", "holding that trial court properly terminated fathers obligation to support his seventeenyearold daughter who refused to live with father but instead chose to reside in her own apartment after her mother moved out of state where daughter offered no justifiable reason for not living with her father daughter only contended that her stepmother was too neat for her and that she wanted to live closer to her friends", "holding that the applicant was entitled to asylum based on her fear that her daughter will be forced to undergo female genital mutilation because her fear of being forced to witness the pain and suffering of her daughter is wellfounded", "holding that a wife is not liable simply by virtue of the marital relationship for her husbands fraudulent acts", "holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary" ]

[ "holding that reduction in workload is an adverse employment action", "holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action", "holding that transfer involving no reduction in pay and only a minor change in working conditions does not rise to the level of a material adverse employment action", "holding that a change in work schedule and request that an employee perform two additional tasks did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action", "holding a transfer or reassignment may rise to the level of an adverse employment condition if it is a significant change in working conditions" ]

[ "holding that proof of relevant market is essential under 2", "recognizing the sherman acts central interest in protecting the economic freedom of participants in the relevant market", "holding elements of attempted monopolization claim under 2 of sherman act are intent anticompetitive conduct and dangerous probability of success in a relevant market", "holding district court erred by incorporating issue of anticompetitive market effect into its standing analysis confusing antitrust injury with an element of a claim under section 1 of the sherman act and stating district courts approach may have been result of the similar antitrust injury label applied to injury component of antitrust standing analysis and to marketplace harm element under section 1", "holding that a plaintiff claiming monopolization is obligated to establish the relevant market because the power to control prices or exclude competition only makes sense with reference to a particular market" ]

[ "holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members", "recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order", "holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice", "holding that the debtor in possession was liable for civil contempt when he disobeyed the courts order to turn over the cash collateral and violated 11 usc 363", "holding that oneday notice provided to creditor before entry of cash collateral order violated due process" ]

[ "holding whistleblower protections available under the washington health care act rcw 4370075 adequately promoted workplace safety ensured compliance with the accepted standard of care and prevented fraudulent billing in the health care industry", "recognizing that a patients choice of a health care facility does not render the facility a beneficiary under 502a1b", "recognizing an individuals right of privacy in the content of health records and noting that health records are the property of the health care entity maintaining them", "recognizing right to privacy in receipt of health care services to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care and the safety and good order of the facility", "holding claim that negligent supervision caused assault was health care liability claim because it was inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided" ]

[ "holding that the law presumes that the jury will follow the courts instructions", "holding that in light of the affirmative constitutional mandate to provide impartial juries in criminal cases the state has an important interest in obtaining juries that do not contain members who because of their religious beliefs are unable to follow the law or the trial courts instructions", "recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions", "holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions", "recognizing that this court presumes that juries follow district courts instructions" ]

[ "holding dormancy statutes should be strictly construed", "holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign", "holding that railroad immunity act should be strictly construed", "holding 2513 to be jurisdictional and therefore must be strictly construed", "holding that in presence of any doubt a penal statute is to be strictly construed" ]

[ "holding allegations of wrongdoing by public officials are on the highest order of first amendment concern", "holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern", "holding that the plaintiffs speech was not a matter of public concern because it did not bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part of the defendant and others", "holding that a complaint that included only allegations of intentional wrongdoing also set forth grounds for liability based on unintentional wrongdoing", "recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern" ]

[ "holding moot appeal from revocation of visa petition where immigrant subsequently obtained lpr status", "holding that the beneficiary of a form 1130 visa petition did not have standing to challenge a denied petition", "holding appeal moot on this basis", "holding the bia did not err in affirming the ijs denial of a continuance request where there was no prima facie approvable visa petition pending and alien had not applied for status adjustment", "holding that where an alien was ineligible for a visa as a matter of law his citizenship was illegally procured and subject to revocation" ]

[ "holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit", "holding that a debtor need not have received a benefit from the fraudulent activity in order for 523a2a to prevent a discharge", "holding that when the government erects a barrier in order to establish standing a group seeking to challenge the barrier need not allege they would have attained the benefit but for the barrier", "holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court", "holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction" ]

[ "holding that district courts sua sponte grant of summary judgment to nonmoving party is an accepted method of expediting litigation", "holding that grant of summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmoving party adduces nothing more than speculation to support its claims", "recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence to defeat summary judgment", "holding that sua sponte grant of summary judgment without notice to the parties constitutes reversible error", "holding that a court can raise the issue of res judicata sua sponte in order to affirm a grant of summary judgment" ]

[ "holding that futility is among the reasons for denying leave to amend a complaint", "holding that denial of leave to amend is error in the absence of justifying reasons", "holding that leave to amend should be freely given unless there is a good reason such as futility to the contrary", "holding that futility prejudice or bad faith may justify refusing to grant leave to amend", "recognizing several reasons to deny leave to amend a complaint" ]

[ "holding that faa does not preempt state law when determining date of perfection", "holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim", "holding that fehba does not completely preempt state law", "holding section 10 of faa is procedural and does not preempt state common law", "holding security interest enforceable at time of creation when state statutory law silent on perfection" ]

[ "holding that the iccta preempted claims of negligence and negligence per se with respect to railroads alleged road blockages", "holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se", "holding negligence per se not applicable to violation of railroad commission regulation", "holding that the iccta preempted statelaw negligence and nuisance claims intended to interfere with railroads operation of switchyard", "holding that the iccta preempted statelaw nuisance claim with respect to operation of side track" ]

[ "holding that whether or not phrase in the superior heading qualifies all of the provisions subordinate to the superior heading", "holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa", "holding that the phrase or ganic diseases of the nervous system contained in 38 usc 11013 was ambiguous because the statute did not define the phrase", "recognizing that where the marks share a word or phrase but are otherwise different the plaintiff is not pmmitted to claim a right to all variant of the phrase in a specific market", "holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase" ]

[ "holding that by choosing the words any actual expenses including attorneys fees incurred congress did not intend to remove the discretion of the district court to award fees in cases such as contingent fee or pro bono cases where the client has not actually incurred the obligation to pay her attorneys fees", "holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife", "holding that attorneys fees incurred in a nonenforcement modification suit can be awarded as additional child support under the family code", "holding that because the wife failed to present any evidence as to the legal services performed in the trial court the wife was not entitled to a second hearing to establish attorneys fees", "holding the family court properly awarded a wife attorneys fees incurred as the result of her husbands contempt" ]

[ "holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property", "holding that treating trust rather than trustee as attorneys client is inconsistent with the law of trusts", "holding that the trustee of a nominee trust functions more as an agent than as a true trustee", "holding that standard of review is a matter of procedural rather than substantive law", "holding that as a matter of law a trustee may foreclose on an undivided one half interest rather than the entire property citation omitted" ]

[ "holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct ", "holding it is error for an alj to fail to consider factors relevant to the pain analysis which are supported by the record", "holding that the alj is not obliged to accept an iq if there is a substantial basis in the record for believing that the claimant was feigning the results", "holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify", "holding that where there are deficiencies in the record the alj is under an affirmative obligation to develop the relevant medical history even when the claimant is represented by counsel" ]

[ "holding that the court can consider inadmissible evidence if the party against whom it is offered does not object to the evidence by moving to strike it", "holding it is well settled that an error in admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection defense counsel must object every time allegedly inadmissible evidence is offered", "holding that the trial courts damages award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it was based upon inadmissible evidence", "holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction", "holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it" ]

[ "holding that the superior court may not issue writs of prohibition to review an order denying recusal before final judgment", "holding that district courts have power to issue writs of prohibition to administrative agencies to prevent them from exceeding their jurisdiction", "holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act", "recognizing the supreme courts longstanding jurisdiction over writs of prohibition and mandamus to courts of inferior jurisdiction", "holding prohibition lies to prevent a lower tribunal from acting in excess of its jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction" ]

[ "holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error", "holding that an osha inspection violating the fourth amendment would constitute irreparable injury for which injunctive relief would be appropriate", "holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because they failed to demonstrate any likelihood that they would end up back in jail where alleged constitutional violations occurred", "holding that a protester must show only that there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for that error", "holding that to have standing plaintiffs must only show that the injunctive relief requested would decrease pollution not that it would return a polluted waterway to pristine condition" ]

[ "holding that because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder", "holding that an insured mortgagees loss under a title insurance policy cannot be measured until the note has not been repaid and the security for the mortgage is shown to be inadequate", "holding that a mortgagees loss cannot he measured unless the underlying debt is not repaid and the security for the mortgage proves inadequate", "holding that a mortgageeinsureds loss cannot be determined unless the note is not repaid and the security for the mortgage proves inadequate", "holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages" ]

[ "holding that the gravamen of the offense is the physical adaptation of the instrument", "holding that the florida offense of attempted lewd assault on a child under the age of sixteen is a crime of violence even though the offense might be accomplished without use of physical force", "holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense", "holding that the deferential standard of review of a plan interpretation is appropriate only when the trust instrument allows the trustee to interpret the instrument and when the trust ee has in fact interpreted the instrument", "holding an indictment legally insufficient when it failed to inform the defendant of the gravamen of the alleged offense" ]

[ "holding that summary judgment was improper on qualified immunity grounds when defendant was aware of prisoners need for medical treatment but failed to provide it", "holding that summary judgment in favor of the defendant was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to designate evidence that demonstrates that the defendant abused the qualified privilege", "holding that it was error for the district court to overrule appellants motion for summary judgment without reference to the qualified immunity defense", "holding that summary judgment for defendant officials on the basis of qualified immunity was improper given officials indefinite refusal to treat plaintiffs cavity", "holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim" ]

[ "holding that an indictment under 912 need not allege additional acts beyond the general act of impersonation", "holding when a statute defines manner or means of committing an offense indictment need not allege matters beyond the language of the statute", "holding that an indictment under 922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient", "holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense", "holding that a found in indictment need not allege all of the elements of entry" ]

[ "holding that there is no first amendment right of access to presentence reports", "holding tolling appropriate where no aspect of reports should have alerted plaintiffs to irregularities", "holding annexation ordinance only voidable due to procedural irregularities", "holding that whether the judgment creditor had reason to know or might have been alerted to circumstances that should reasonably have impelled him to check beyond the filed record is irrelevant ", "holding that 2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases" ]

[ "holding that the west virginia state bar committee on legal ethics was a state court for purposes of removal and citing favorably to volkswagen de puerto rico supra 454 f2d 38", "holding that a minimum fee schedule enforced by the virginia state bar did not fall within the parker exception because the fee schedule was not mandated by the virginia supreme court and thus it could not fairly be said that the state of virginia through its supreme court rules required the anticompetitive activities", "holding that the proceedings of the west virginia state bar committee on the unlawful practice were judicial in nature based on hallmarks similar to those discussed herein", "holding that a state procedural default will not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar", "holding that the united states was a statutory employer under puerto rico law" ]

[ "holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983", "holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act", "recognizing such a claim under 1983", "holding that claim brought under section 1983 of the civil rights act constituted a personal injury tort claim because section 1983 confers a general remedy for injuries to personal rights", "holding state is not a proper defendant under 1983" ]

[ "holding that the secretary is not entitled to deference when construing the acts implementing regulations", "holding that even though the reasonable doubt instruction given in the case was not the preferred instruction it was not a misstatement of the law and therefore was legally appropriate", "holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances", "holding that group was not entitled to writ of mandamus given that it was not clear that congress intended deadlines for meeting the standards to be mandatory even though the statute provided that the secretary shall prescribe certain regulations not later than given deadlines", "holding that the statute is mandatory" ]

[ "holding that a state tax lien was not judicial lien arising from judgment such that it could be avoided in bankruptcy by a chapter 13 debtor", "holding that chapter 20 debtor could not avoid lien because of ineligibility for discharge", "holding state courts authority under iowa code section 59821 not the lien created there under prevented debtor from claiming the iowa homestead exemption and therefore the debtor could not avoid the lien because the lien did not impair an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled but for the lien", "holding that a chapter 13 debtor had standing to avoid a judgment lien to the extent of her exemption amount but not the entire judgment lien", "holding that the debtor had standing to avoid a foreclosure sale under 522 but only to the extent of her 5000 exemption" ]

[ "holding that factors that ordinarily constitute innocent behavior may provide a composite picture sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion", "holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion", "holding that such factors may constitute a substantial burden", "holding that while each separate item standing alone did not provide reasonable suspicion a combination of factors clearly satisfied the reasonable suspicion requirement", "holding that factors which by themselves were quite consistent with innocent travel collectively amounted to reasonable suspicion" ]

[ "holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property", "holding that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related statelaw claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction", "holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act", "holding that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over all subsequent custody orders once the trial court acquired jurisdiction", "holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim" ]

[ "holding that the district court which erred in its conclusion that there was jurisdictional defect abused its discretion in denying a plaintiffsmotion for leave to amend his complaint because the proposed amendment would not cure the jurisdictional defect", "holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect", "holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process", "holding error to be fundamental when record shows jurisdictional defect", "holding that a rule 41b violation constituted a jurisdictional flaw inexcusable as a technical defect" ]

[ "holding that appointment of a conservator does not remove a mentally disabled persons legal disability so as to start the statute of limitations running", "holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution", "holding that tolling accorded to persons of unsound mind continued during disability regardless that next friend might have sued", "holding that the express provisions of article 4590i exclude the unsound mind tolling provision of texcivprac remcode ann 16001a2 and b", "holding that the appointment of a conservator will not cease the tolling of the statute of limitations for those of unsound mind" ]

[ "holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with", "holding south carolina conviction for failure to stop for a blue light to be violent felony under acca because prohibited conduct creates potential for confrontation and violence", "holding that eighth amendment prohibited consideration at sentencing of personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional im pact of the crimes on the victims family", "holding concealed weapons could be prohibited because of their tendency to be used in violent crimes on unsuspecting victims", "holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes" ]

[ "holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion", "holding that laches is an affirmative defense", "holding that decision on waiver of affirmative defense normally is within district courts discretion", "holding burden of proof is on one asserting an affirmative defense", "holding that fair use is an affirmative defense" ]

[ "holding that exclusionary rule does not extend to forbid the use in federal civil tax proceeding of evidence illegally seized by state criminal law enforcement agent", "holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule", "holding that due process requires exclusionary rule to be applied in state trials", "holding that me const art 1 5 does not require the state to prove probable cause for a search beyond a reasonable doubt", "holding that nm const art ii 10 exclusionary rule applied to use of evidence in state court criminal proceeding when that evidence resulted from warrantless search by federal border patrol agents at checkpoint in new mexico" ]

[ "holding that where a court possesses jurisdiction over a disputed matter it may exercise its equitable powers to ensure that substance will not give way to form and that technical considerations will not prevent substantial justice from being done", "holding that it may not", "holding that congress may impose its will on the states as long as it is acting within the powers granted by the constitution", "holding that any attempt by way of contract to deprive a city of control over exercise of it police powers is void", "holding a court of criminal appeals may not exercise its sentence approval powers to criticize a state court conviction" ]

[ "holding that where defendant objected in the district court only to the loss calculation and not specifically to the calculation of restitution the issue of restitution was not properly presented to the district court", "holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding", "holding that the district court failed to comply with rule 32c1 because its oral finding regarding the value of loss resulting from monuss offense was stated in general terms and did not explain how it calculated the amount of loss or respond to the defendants specific factual objections to the methods of calculation included in the psr", "holding that even if one of the governments calculation methods impermissibly counted funds obtained from the same stolen credit card towards both actual and intended loss any error was harmless because an alternate calculation method which was free of any double counting also resulted in a loss amount of between 120000 and 400000 and thus application of the same enhancement", "holding the same" ]

[ "holding that it may be decided as a matter of law", "holding as matter of law that nontransferable cds were article 9 instruments", "holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law", "holding as matter of law that cds containing restrictions on transfers were nonetheless article 9 instruments", "holding blank transfers of real property are impermissible under massachusetts law" ]

[ "holding that the trial court is required to provide reasons for its decision prior to appeal", "holding the trial court is required to make a determination on impairment of access prior to trial", "holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court", "holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court", "holding that whether the trial court in a bench trial applied a correct understanding of the elements legally required to convict was reviewable on appeal" ]

[ "recognizing that purely personal retribution is of course not persecution on account of political opinion but holding that when the alleged government corruption is inextricably intertwined with governmental operation the exposure and prosecution of such an abuse of public trust is necessarily political", "holding that opposition to government corruption may constitute political opinion", "holding that retaliation for opposition to government corruption can constitute persecution on account of a political opinion", "holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political", "holding that a fear of retribution from a husband a high political official was a strictly personal matter" ]

[ "holding that the granting of an application to file an appeal out of time is considered part of the direct appeal process under oklahoma law", "holding on appeal from a habeas corpus denial that counsel was not ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal because of defendants escape", "holding that defendants claim based on richardson v state 717 ne2d 32 ind1999 would be considered on the merits where defendant was convicted in 1993 and did not originally timely file a direct appeal but in 1999 was granted permission to file a belated appeal", "holding that counsels failure to file appeal was not deficient performance under strickland where the petitioner in 2255 action did not direct counsel to file an appeal and acquiesced in counsels decision to pursue as an alternative a reduction in sentence", "holding that where the fourth amendment question was raised at trial but not preserved on direct appeal in the state court the defendants failure to raise the issue on appeal in the state courts did not suffice to avoid stone" ]

[ "holding an unsecured creditors postconfirmation suit against a secured creditor for fraudulent misrepresentation at a creditors meeting constituted a collateral attack on the confirmation order", "holding that unsecured creditor could not appeal decision determining priority among secured creditors because it would not affect the payment of his claims", "holding that plan proposing and payment of nondischargeable student loan in full outside plan according to its terms for 54 months and 79 payment to unsecured creditors over 36 months did not discriminate unfairly among unsecured class", "holding that because creditors claim was unsecured after application of section 506a and because section 1325a5 does not apply to unsecured claims creditors lien could properly be avoided", "holding that postconfirmation attempt to equitably subordinate claim of one general unsecured creditor in a class of general unsecured creditors was a violation of 1123a4" ]

[ "holding that possession of a sawedoff shotgun under 26 usc 5861d is a crime of violence and noting that congress found certain firearms sawedoff shot guns and grenades to be inherently dangerous and lacking in usefulness other than for violent and criminal purposes", "holding that shortbarreled shotguns are unprotected", "holding that burglary is violent felony", "holding that possession of a shortbarreled shotgun is a violent felony under the accas residual clause because sawedoff shotguns are inherently dangerous and lack usefulness except for violent and criminal purposes internal quotation marks omitted", "holding that possession of sawedoff shotgun is violent felony as defined by armed career criminal act" ]

[ "holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief", "holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies", "holding that partys failure to file a timely internal administrative appeal as required by regulations of the department of agriculture constituted failure to exhaust administrative remedies and precluded judicial action", "holding that constitutional claims against defendants in their individual capacities were precluded by plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under pertinent statutory scheme", "holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review" ]

[ "holding that 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies citing united states v petty 82 f3d 809 810 8th cir1996 and united states v ono 72 f3d 101 10203 9th cir1995", "holding 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies and collecting cases", "holding that 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies", "holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties", "holding that sovereign immunity does not bar extinguishment of united states junior lien in proceeding in which united states was not a party" ]

[ "holding that preclusion rules apply in 1983 actions", "holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity", "holding that qualified immunity under 1983 does not apply to actions brought under 521", "holding that preclusion rules apply in section 1983 actions", "holding that in actions brought under 42 usc 1983 federal courts apply the states statute of limitation for personal injury" ]

[ "holding resentencing does not affect the date on which the judgment of conviction became final", "holding that a conviction is deemed final on the date of sentencing when there is no evidence that notice of appeal was filed", "holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run", "holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict", "holding that resentencing is required" ]

[ "recognizing bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over such a collateral attack", "recognizing collateral attack on void order", "holding that federal rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel determine preclusive effect of prior federal ftca judgments even though liability is based on state law", "recognizing preclusive effect of judgments notwithstanding pending appeal or collateral attack", "holding that settlement agreements like consent judgments are not given preclusive effect unless the parties manifest their intent to give them such effect" ]

[ "holding that error was preserved by running objection because of defendants immediate objection to states specific question in combination with trial courts comments showing that it understood nature of defendants objection", "holding that plaintiffs objection to an r r was not specific enough to constitute an adequate objection under fedrcivp 72b", "holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection", "holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully", "holding that a party fails to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal not only by failing to make a specific objection but also by making the wrong specific objection" ]

[ "holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance to allow defendant to present mitigating evidence in the form of letters and affidavits from family members when they were not requested until the day before the hearing", "holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing", "holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for a continuance when record showed that contrary to defendants contention state did not fail to comply with discovery duties and that defendant failed to show that denial resulted in harm to his case", "holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice", "holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form" ]

[ "holding anonymous tip that someone at the residence was dealing drugs did not amount to anything the tip was never substantiated and none of the occupants were ever charged with drug dealing", "holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop", "holding that the officers had sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant was inside the residence to execute the arrest warrant because the officers relied on the anonymous tip given to the defendants parole officer the drivers identification of the defendant as meaty in a photograph and his assertion that meaty was in the residence at that time selling drugs", "holding that the fact that the defendant did not handle the drugs is not dispositive of his involvement in drug dealing", "holding an informants tip can establish reasonable suspicion without investigative confirmation if the tip is credible" ]

[ "holding that the armed career criminal designation based on prior convictions does not violate the sixth amendment under booker", "holding that a sentencing court may determine the nature of a prior conviction without violating the sixth amendment", "holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the acca even though convictions were neither charged in indictment nor admitted", "holding that controlling law both before and after booker counsels that a judge can make factual findings about a defendants prior convictions without implicating the sixth amendment", "holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing as career offender" ]

[ "holding that when there are federal law claims in a case also presenting state law claims the federal rule favoring admissibility is the controlling rule the court found this approach consistent with the rule in federal practice disfavoring privileges not constitutionally based", "holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law", "holding that the federal rule favoring admissibility of relevant evidence applies to state law claims in federal cases to which state law privileges might oth erwise apply", "holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule", "holding that a federal court may resort to state law analogies for the development of a federal common law of privileges in instances where the federal rule is unsettled" ]

[ "holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable", "holding order granting a new trial is not a final appealable order because it does not terminate the action or any of the claims or parties in the action", "holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court", "holding order partially vacating a judgment was not appealable because it does not provide the ultimate decision in the case and questions remained before the district court", "holding appealable a case dismissed in effect by the district courts order" ]

[ "holding that a 1983 due process claim that essentially contests the fairness of the plaintiffs prosecution is similar to his malicious prosecution claim and claims resembling malicious prosecution do not accrue until the prosecution has terminated in the plaintiffs favor ", "holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person", "holding that a plaintiffs allegations that the defendant seized him pursuant to legal process that was not supported by probable cause and that the criminal proceedings terminated in his favor are sufficient to state a 1983 malicious prosecution claim alleging a seizure that was violative of the fourth amendment", "holding that section 1983 claims alleging due process violations stemming from malicious prosecution are unavailable when a state malicious prosecution action exists", "holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same" ]

[ "holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea", "holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement", "holding that prisoner who sought to withdraw guilty plea based on alleged breach of plea agreement due to his placement in a federal rather than a state prison facility had to bring claim under 2255 not 2241", "holding that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw his plea must either withdraw his plea to all charges or to none when his plea to all charges was part of an agreement with the state", "holding that a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea as a matter of right before it is accepted by the court based on ndr crim p 32d3 which states that a defendant may not withdraw his plea of guilty as a matter of right once the plea has been accepted by the court alteration in original" ]

[ "recognizing this distinction in case with eeoc intervention", "recognizing this distinction", "recognizing the boggs distinction", "recognizing this distinction between 2l12 and 4b12", "recognizing distinction made by majority" ]

[ "holding creditor willfully violated the automatic stay in refusing after notified of debtors bankruptcy filing to turn over debtors funds in his possession", "holding refusal to turn over property seized prepetition constituted violation of stay once notice of the stay had been given", "holding that the automatic stay terminates as to the debtor personally and as to his nonestate property but that the stay persists as to property of the bankruptcy estate", "holding that creditors failure to voluntarily turn over property lawfully seized prepetition constituted violation of automatic stay", "holding secured creditors refusal to turn over property of debtors estate to debtor upon demand constituted an exercise of control over such property in violation of automatic stay" ]

[ "holding that one does not arouse reasonable suspicion merely by attempting to walk away from the police", "holding only reasonable suspicion is required to conduct a field sobriety test", "holding that while each separate item standing alone did not provide reasonable suspicion a combination of factors clearly satisfied the reasonable suspicion requirement", "holding that the excluded evidence required a finding of reasonable suspicion", "holding reasonable suspicion not required provided police do not induce cooperation by coercive means" ]

[ "holding that officers reasonably relied on the warrant though judge inadvertently failed to initial the appropriate line", "holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on the warrant", "holding that if the application for a warrant contains probable cause apart from the improper information then the warrant is lawful and the independent source doctrine applies providing that the officers were not prompted to obtain the warrant by what they observed during the initial entry", "holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on warrant", "holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity" ]

[ "recognizing numerous different grounds which may be relied upon for granting a stay and that in general a stay will be allowed or refused on the particular grounds best fitting the exigencies of the individual case and with a view to doing justice between the parties", "holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious", "holding that a court may issue injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates four factors substantial likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm no substantial injury to the other party and furtherance of the public interest", "holding that a stay of execution is only appropriate where the movant demonstrates substantial grounds upon which relief might be granted", "holding that amendment is futile if the proposed amended complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted" ]

[ "holding that an order that did not specify a date or command the contemnor to act immediately was not definite and specific", "holding that letter stating an annual salary did not embody the terms of any agreement between the parties as it did not specify a beginning date duration of time and did not require acceptance signatures", "holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act", "holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable", "holding that the march of time began for the period in which to file a rule 59e motion on the date the court entered an order that was immediately appealable" ]

[ "holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver", "holding that during a routine traffic stop it is reasonable for an officer to search the driver for weapons before placing the driver in a patrol car if placing the driver in the patrol car during the investigation prevents officers or the driver from being subjected to a dangerous condition and placing the driver in the patrol car is the least intrusive means to avoid the dangerous condition", "holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search", "holding that the driver of a borrowed car had the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy to support standing for fourth amendment purposes", "holding that the driver of a ear owned by his wife who had given him permission to use it had a legitimate expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment" ]

[ "holding that the defendants allegations that his codefendant admitted that the defendant had no role in the robbery and that the codefendant had not testified on the defendants behalf because he had been coerced by the state were sufficient to state a prima facie claim of newly discovered evidence", "holding that there was sufficient evidence for a robbery conviction where the getaway car a red firebird was identified by an individual who followed the vehicle and wrote down the license plate the firebird had been stolen from a gas station in a nearby city several weeks earlier the firebird had a defendants fingerprints both on its inside and outside on the drivers side a friend of one defendant testified that he had seen him driving a red firebird two or three weeks before the robbery a music tape reported missing by the owner of the firebird was found in one defendants house ammunition for handguns a spent shotgun shell and stacks of cash sorted by denomination were found in one defendants house a friend testified that the defendants confided in him about the robbery and an fbi agent testified that he overheard the defendants talking about killing a person who planned to testify against them", "holding that defendants false statement was material even though the grand jury was not certain that the defendant had lied until several weeks later when three witnesses testified contrary to the defendant", "holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate", "holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation when the defendant previously planned to commit the robbery armed himself with a shotgun and shot the victim during the robbery" ]

[ "holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions", "holding that class action was superior to individual suits where class members had relatively small interests and might not have the wherewithal to bring suit to protect their individual rights", "holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud", "holding that because the tcpa claims will require extensive individual fact inquiries into whether each individual gave express consent by providing their wireless number to the creditor during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed individual inquiries predominate over the class action", "holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims were dismissed the class action was properly dismissed" ]

[ "holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees", "holding that a court may award attorneys fees under rule 41d", "holding that a district court may award attorneys fees while the merits are on appeal", "holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency", "holding that a court may award attorneys fees in a successful lmrda action" ]

[ "holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings", "holding fedrcrimp 42b applicable to such criminal contempt proceedings for refusals to testify before the grand jury", "holding that where witness refused to take the oath and testify his grand jury testimony should not have been admitted because he was not subject to cross examination before the grand jury", "holding no right to crossexamine in grand jury proceedings", "holding one man grand jury that held witness in contempt and sentenced him to prison was contempt proceeding to which there was a right to public access" ]

[ "holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc 1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity", "holding that the trustee alone has the capacity to sue and be sued ", "holding that bank could not bring counterclaim in its capacity as trustee", "holding that delaware law controlled delaware corporations capacity to sue or be sued", "holding that the words sue and be sued when used in a statute do not by themselves waive immunity" ]

[ "holding that district court lacked power to decide personal jurisdiction issue already decided by district of columbia superior court", "holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review state disciplinary proceedings against attorney", "holding that this court lacked jurisdiction under 46110 for lack of finality and that the district court also lacked jurisdiction because the orders were not final and thus not ripe for review", "holding that in absence of valid final order district court lacked power to review boards action", "holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court" ]

[ "holding that nominal damages are appropriate for deprivations of constitutional rights that do not result in actual injury", "holding that the right to nominal damages for eighth amendment violations can be waived if such damages are not timely requested", "recognizing availability of nominal damages for violations of constitutional rights notwithstanding statutory bar in prison litigation reform act 42 usc 1997ee", "holding that under 1983 violations of constitutional rights are actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury", "holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict" ]

[ "holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss", "holding that plaintiff incorrectly concludes that an abuse of discretion is the standard of review for summary judgment", "holding that hcqias presumption of immunity creates an unusual standard for reviewing summary judgment orders as the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the professional review process was not reasonable and thus did not meet the standard for immunity", "holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict", "holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury" ]

[ "holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims", "holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim", "recognizing provisions of the fair housing act that forbid false statements that housing is unavailable to a person because of his race", "holding that mccarran act did not preempt application of fair housing act against redlining by insurance companies where state law outlawed the practice but provided no private remedy", "holding that the brooke amendment to the housing act provided a cause of action under 1983" ]

[ "holding in deciding whether texas law confers a property interest that purported legislative grants of property rights or privileges must be construed in favor of the state and whatever is not unequivocally granted in clear and explicit terms is withheld quoting texas v standard 414 sw2d 148 153 tex1967", "holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas", "holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law not arizona law should be applied", "recognizing strong interest in protecting texas citizens where tort was committed in whole or in part in texas", "holding misrepresentation made by outofstate defendant to texas plaintiff who relied on it in texas satisfied requirement for jurisdiction under longarm statute based on commission of a tort in part in texas" ]

[ "recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress", "holding that employee could not state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under fela without a showing of physical impact", "holding that under south dakota law compensation for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires manifestation of physical symptoms and intentional infliction of emotional distress requires an extreme disabling emotional response", "holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute", "holding that in being discharged employee did not sustain the direct physical impact required to maintain an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress" ]

[ "recognizing that commissions rules permit hearsay evidence", "recognizing privilege under federal rules", "holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution", "holding that rules of evidence do not permit an expert to give opinion or state legal conclusions regarding a question of law", "holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence" ]

[ "holding that mandatory visual strip search policy in county jail was unconstitutional", "holding a visual strip and visual cavity search unreasonable when done beside a police car", "holding that mandatory visual strip search policy at correctional institution intake center was unconstitutional", "holding unconstitutional blanket jail policy of subjecting all arrestees to strip and visual body cavity searches", "holding that mandatory routine visual strip search policy for all arrestees who were to be introduced into general jail population was constitutional" ]

[ "holding that congress intended the phrase physical force incorporated into 922g9 to encompass crimes characterized by the application of any physical force", "recognizing that an arrest requires either physical force or where physical force is absent submission to the assertion of authority", "holding that work by the contractor that did not itself entail physical research nonetheless was an integral part of physical research to be performed by the agency and thus supported the designation of naics code 541712", "holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work", "holding iowa common law touching assault met use of physical force required for enhancement under 18 usc 922g9 be cause any physical contact by necessity requires physical force to complete" ]

[ "holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions", "holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review", "holding that except in rare circumstances an appellate court should not intrude upon the domain which congress has exclusively entrusted to an administrative agency", "holding that an appellate court has discretion to consider an issue not argued by the parties", "recognizing the principle that an administrative agency error should not work to a claimants detriment" ]

[ "recognizing those actions for monetary relief that we have characterized as equitable such as actions for disgorgement of improper profits", "holding that monetary damages may be awarded in a 1132a3 claim because when sought as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty restitution is properly regarded as an equitable remedy because the fiduciary concept is equitable", "recognizing surcharge and reformation as traditional equitable remedies that may allow for awarding monetary compensation based on misleading disclosures", "holding that state prisoner seeking only monetary damages in 1983 suit need not exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 1997e if such remedies do not provide for the award of monetary relief", "holding that equitable relief is only appropriate where legal remedies are inadequate" ]

[ "recognizing legislature knows difference between prosecution and conviction by noting former jeopardy provisions of code 192294 provide that if the same act be a violation of two or more statutes conviction under one of such statutes shall be a bar to a prosecution or proceeding under the other or others and holding that if the legislature had intended that the statutory bar apply to felony cases tried in the circuit court after the resolution in district court of misdemeanor charges arising out of the same act it would have provided that a conviction for a criminal offense arising out of one act would bar a later conviction for another offense arising out of the same act", "holding that foreign states prosecution did not bar subsequent florida prosecution for same conduct", "holding that a judgment in a criminal prosecution for dwi did not bar a subsequent civil proceeding founded on the same facts", "holding federal conviction for forcibly breaking and entering post office does not bar state prosecution for burglary based on same facts", "holding the same for malicious prosecution" ]