IN RE PANGHAT

Citator

Cited By

• Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (U.S. 2013)
  …t need to prove materiality before class certification, the court similarly held that “the district court correctly refused to consider” Amgen’s rebuttal evidence “at the class certification stage.” Ibid. We granted Amgen’s petition for certiorari, 567 U. S. 905 (2012), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals over whether district courts must require plaintiffs to prove, and must allow defendants to present evidence rebutting, the element of materiality before certifying a class action under § 10(…
• Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (U.S. 2013)
  …e the disagreement among state and federal courts on the question whether retrial is barred when a trial court grants an acquittal because the prosecution had failed to prove an “element” of the offense that, in actuality, it did not have to prove.3 567 U. S. 905 (2012). We now reverse. [*318] H-i 8—f A In answering this question, we do not write on a clean slate. Quite the opposite. It has been half a century since we first recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial following a court-decreed…