Citation network
Burks Vs. Lasker
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 14, 1979
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 471 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Burks v. LaskerSearch
-
U.S. 471 (1979) Burks v. LaskerSearch
-
Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
and Circuit precedent, the courts below assumed that an implied private right of action existed under each Act. Brown v. BullockSearch
-
Abrahamson v. FleschnerSearch
-
Bolger v. LaventholSearch
-
also sanctioned the bringing of the suit in derivative form, apparently assuming that, as we held in J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSearch
-
our decision is not controlled by Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
and state law does not operate of its own force. Sola Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
Co., 317 U. S. 173 , 317 U. S. 176 (1942). See Board of Comm'rs v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Sola Page 441 U. S. 477 Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
Co., supra at 317 U. S. 176 . See Tunstall v. LocomotiveSearch
-
Board of Comm'rs v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra. Cf. United States v. KimbellSearch
-
Butner v. UnitedSearch
-
upon the effectuation of federal rights must, therefore, be treated as raising federal questions. See Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
Auto Workers v. HoosierSearch
-
Sola Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
does not, however, make state law irrelevant. De Sylva v. BallentineSearch
-
U. S. 570 , 351 U. S. 580 (1956). Cf. United States v. KimbellSearch
-
held that federal statutes authorize the federal courts to fashion a complete body of federal law. See Textile Workers v. LincolnSearch
-
determine the powers of corporate directors is in the relevant State's corporation law. See Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. GreenSearch
-
and prohibitory in nature -- it often limits the exercise of directorial power, but only rarely creates it. Cf. Price v. GurneySearch
-
corporation law is to be replaced simply because a plaintiff's cause of action is based upon a federal statute. Cort v. AshSearch
-
supra. See United Copper Securities Co. v. AmalgamatedSearch
-
Copper Co., 244 U. S. 261 , 244 U. S. 264 (1917). Cf. United States v. YazellSearch
-
De Sylva v. BallentineSearch
-
United Page 441 U. S. 479 States v. NationalSearch
-
Cf. Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
Wallis v. PanSearch
-
American Petroleum Corp., 384 U. S. 63 , 384 U. S. 68 (1966). See Auto Workers v. HoosierSearch
-
Corp., supra at 383 U. S. 702 . Cf. Brown v. WesternSearch
-
United States v. LittleSearch
-
U. S. 580 , 412 U. S. 596 (1973), will not Page 441 U. S. 480 be applied. See, e.g., Levitt v. JohnsonSearch
-
primarily of portfolio securities, and belonging to the individual investors holding shares in the fund. Tannenbaum v. ZellerSearch
-
Galfand v. ChestnuttSearch
-
Wolf v. BarkesSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Burks v. LaskerSearch
-
Act. Brown v. BullockSearch
-
Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
See Board of Comm'rs v. UnitedSearch
-
Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
See Tunstall v. LocomotiveSearch
-
Cf. United States v. KimbellSearch
-
See Robertson v. WegmannSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial