Loading…

Diaz-Paulino v. United States — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

Diaz-Paulino v. United States

151 L. Ed. 2d 590 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 10, 2001

Full text

Diaz-Paulino v. United States

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 9268760

Citations

151 L. Ed. 2d 590
534 U.S. 1071
122 S. Ct. 677
70 U.S.L.W. 3383
2001 U.S. LEXIS 11052

Cited by

In re Key Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation
S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2016
In re Gentiva Securities Litigation
E.D. New York · Sep 19, 2013
In Re Optionable Securities Litigation
S.D. New York · Sep 15, 2008
Clark v. Comcast Corp.
E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2008
Kermanshah v. Kermanshah
S.D. New York · Aug 11, 2008
In Re Pfizer, Inc. Securities Litigation
S.D. New York · Feb 28, 2008
CompuDyne Corp. v. Shane
S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2006
In Re BISYS Securities Litigation
S.D. New York · Oct 28, 2005
Jordan v. Murphy
Sixth Circuit · Aug 2, 2005

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

California Public Employees' Retirement System v. The Chubb Corporation

Third Circuit · Dec 30, 2004

Rivoli v. Gannett Co., Inc.

W.D. New York · Jul 29, 2004

E.D. Michigan · Jul 26, 2004

Parentheticals

stating that “[sjummary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine factual dispute relating to whether the defendants committed acts that allegedly violated clearly established rights”
Jordan v. Murphy
primary violation element of a Section 20(a) claim was satisfied where plaintiffs adequately pleaded Section 10(b) claim
In Re Philip Services Corp. Securities Litigation