C.D. California· 2/20/2009
Browne v. McCain
Citations
- 611 F. Supp. 2d 1062
- 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18882
- 2009 WL 483212
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- plaintiff’s showing requires “a 21 mere possibility of success” and “even minimal merit” is sufficient to prevent dismissal
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: R. Gary Klausner
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court· 1976-02-27· cited 4,982×
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court· 2002-08-29· cited 1,129×
- Taus v. LoftusCalifornia Supreme Court· 2007-02-26· cited 431×
- Patricia Hart v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security AdministrationNinth Circuit· 2001-09-24· cited 409×
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. DelfinoCalifornia Supreme Court· 2005-03-03· cited 393×
- Zamani v. CarnesNinth Circuit· 2007-06-04· cited 387×
- Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2005-10-19· cited 232×
- United States Of America, Ex El., Plaintiff v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1999-09-10· cited 153×
- Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2007-05-30· cited 129×
- Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc.California Supreme Court· 2001-04-30· cited 113×
- Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a New York Corporation, and David Deutsch Associates, Inc., a New York CorporationNinth Circuit· 1992-08-19· cited 105×
- DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2000-02-14· cited 105×
- Chavez v. MendozaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-12-24· cited 99×
- Eastwood v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1983-12-01· cited 98×
- Simmons v. Allstate InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-09-14· cited 83×
- Bette Midler v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Young & Rubicam Inc., a New York CorporationNinth Circuit· 1988-06-22· cited 67×
- Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 1995-05-03· cited 54×
- Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 1993-04-30· cited 44×
- Paulsen v. Personality Posters, Inc.New York Supreme Court· 1968-10-14· cited 38×
- Jose Solano, Jr. v. Playgirl, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 2002-06-13· cited 36×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.