MIMS

v.

ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012)
  …device which, it said, violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Maynard, 615 F. 3d 544 (2010). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s petition for rehearing en banc, with four judges dissenting. 625 F. 3d 766 (2010). We granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011). 1 — 1 1 — I A The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” It is beyond disp…
• Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (U.S. 2012)
  …ining that it was bound by its Fox decision striking down the entirety of the Commission’s indecency policy. See 404 Fed. Appx., at 533. The Government sought review of both judgments, see Brief for Petitioners 1, and this Court granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011). These are the cases before us. [*253] II A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required. See Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.…
• Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (U.S. 2012)
  …r the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 421 Fed. Appx. [*376] 920, 921 (2011) (per curiam) (“Congress granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions under the [TCPA].” (quoting Nicholson, 136 F. 3d, at 1287-1288)). We granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011), to resolve a split among the Circuits as to whether Congress granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions brought under the TCPA. Compare Murphey v. Lanier, 204 F. 3d 911, 915 (CA9 2000) (U. S. district courts lack federa…