Ninth Circuit· 12/11/2017
Marcus Roberts v. At&t Mobility LLC
Citations
- 877 F.3d 833
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that First Amendment freedoms are “a guarantee only against abridgment by the government,” and, thus, “state action is a necessary threshold” a plaintiff must cross
- holding a “threshold requirement of any constitutional claim is the presence of state action”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hawkins, Fletcher, Tallman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Melissa Belgau v. Jay InsleeNinth Circuit· 2020-09-16· cited 108×
- Cooley v. Cal. Statewide Law Enforcement Ass'nE.D. California· 2019-07-09· cited 9×
- Wong v. Restoration RoboticsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2022-04-28
- Prager University v. Google LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2022-12-05
- Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SECFifth Circuit· 2023-10-18
Cites
27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court· 1983-02-23· cited 9,657×
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court· 1982-06-25· cited 4,631×
- American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. SullivanSupreme Court· 1999-05-24· cited 3,121×
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court· 1989-03-06· cited 2,861×
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court· 1989-03-21· cited 2,560×
- Flagg Bros., Inc. v. BrooksSupreme Court· 1978-05-15· cited 2,370×
- Blum v. YaretskySupreme Court· 1982-06-25· cited 2,224×
- Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1977-03-01· cited 2,149×
- Shelley v. KraemerSupreme Court· 1948-05-03· cited 1,913×
- Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court· 1988-04-19· cited 906×
- Nichols v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-06-06· cited 832×
- Hudgens v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court· 1976-03-03· cited 720×
- Katz v. Cellco PartnershipSecond Circuit· 2015-07-28· cited 372×
- Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court· 1996-06-28· cited 290×
- Susan A. Desiderio v. National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.Second Circuit· 1999-09-22· cited 279×
- Directv, Inc. v. ImburgiaSupreme Court· 2015-12-14· cited 187×
- Naoko Ohno v. Yuko YasumaNinth Circuit· 2013-07-02· cited 174×
- Doug Lair v. Steve BullockNinth Circuit· 2012-10-16· cited 165×
- Mary KOVELESKIE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SBC CAPITAL MARKETS, INC. A/K/A SBC Warburg, Inc., Defendant-AppellantSeventh Circuit· 1999-02-04· cited 162×
- United States v. Steven Douglas DareNinth Circuit· 2005-09-23· cited 156×
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.