Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
Securities fraud plaintiffs who seek to certify a class action need not actually prove material misrepresentation to meet the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) at the class certification stage, but need only show the predominance of a common question of material misrepresentation invoked by the fraud-on-the-market rebuttable presumption.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Gabelli v. SEC
In a securities action brought by the SEC, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the allegedly fraudulent action occurred not the date it was discovered.
Area(s) of Law:- Securities Law
Marx v. General Revenue Corp.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)—which allows a court to award costs to a prevailing party "[u]nless a federal statute . . . provides otherwise"—is not displaced by the “bad faith” provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the provision is not "contrary" to the Rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Chaidez v. United States
A defendant cannot benefit from a new rule when her conviction became final prior to the new rule’s enactment.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Evans v. Michigan
The Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial after an acquittal regardless of whether the acquittal was erroneous.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Gunn v. Minton
"[S]tate legal malpractice claims based on underlying patent matters will rarely, if ever, arise under federal patent law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1338(a)."
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Henderson v. United States
A trial court's decision is "plain error" under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) if the error is plain at the time of appellate review, even when the law was unsettled at the time of error.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Johnson v. Williams
When a state court addresses some of the claims raised on appeal but does not expressly address a federal claim that is later raised in habeas proceedings, there is a rebuttable presumption that the state court decided the federal claim on its merits.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Bailey v. United States
The rule in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, which permits officers executing a search warrant to “detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted” is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Chafin v. Chafin
The return of a child to a foreign country under an International Convention return order does not render an appeal of that order moot.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Florida v. Harris
A court should find probable cause for a search based on a narcotics detection dog’s alert when the State produces proof that the dog is reliable at detecting drugs in a controlled setting and the defendant fails to contest that showing.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.
Since Georgia has not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a policy in which hospital authorities can substantially lessen competition by acquiring additional hospitals, state-action immunity does not apply to the hospital authorities.
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Whether the aggregate individual political contribution limit imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is an unconstitutional burden on would-be contributors’ First Amendment rights.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
Neither the possibility of future injury nor the choice to spend money to minimize the possibility of future injury is sufficient to “satisfy the well-established requirement that threatened injury must be ‘certainly impending.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Standing