DIXON

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By

• Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1996)
  …settlement was rejected by the Court of Chancery as unfair to the class. See In re MCA, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, 598 A. 2d 687 (1991). Compare the decision below with Grimes v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 17 F. 3d 1553 (CA3), cert. denied, 513 U. S. 986 (1994); Nottingham Partners v. Trans-Lux Corp., 925 F. 2d 29 (CA1 1991); and Abramson v. Pennwood Investment Corp., 392 F. 2d 759 (CA2 1968). In fact, the Chancery Court rejected the first settlement, which contained no opt-out provision, as unfair…
• Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (U.S. 1996)
  …ons of the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity. The District Court initially denied the Government’s motion, but reconsidered the matter based on an intervening Fifth Circuit decision, United States v. Holmberg, 19 F. 3d 1062, cert. denied, 513 U. S. 986 (1994). The court in Holm-berg, agreeing with the United States, held that the §742 service “forthwith” requirement “is a condition of the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity and, thus, a jurisdictional prerequisite.” 19 F. 3d, at 1064. In so…

  ← 1 / 2 →