Also known as: on-point · directly on point · on all fours
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A case or authority that discusses the precise issue now at hand.
Omar Olson sued a bank in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. He served process by leaving papers with a branch manager under a Federal Rule. The bank moved to dismiss citing a conflicting state statute. The court found no federal rule on point and applied the balance-of-interests test.
Odessa Okada filed a diversity action and served the defendant by certified mail under the Federal Rules. State law required personal delivery by a sheriff. The defendant moved to dismiss. The court held the federal rule on point and denied the motion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Oswald Orozco sued a media company for intentional infliction of emotional distress after publication of a satirical piece. The company cited a prior Supreme Court decision on similar speech-based tort claims. The court treated that decision as on point and dismissed the claim.
Olivia Owens challenged a presidential proclamation restricting entry. The government pointed to earlier executive orders with comparable waiver provisions. The court found those orders on point and upheld the proclamation structure.
Oliver Okeke sued after an officer used deadly force during a felony arrest. The state cited its statute allowing force to prevent escape. The court examined whether that statute was on point with constitutional limits on seizures.
Omega Energy sought a permit for a group home. The city denied it under an ordinance. The court reviewed prior equal protection decisions on special permits and determined none was on point for the mental disability classification at issue.
A Federal Rule counts as on point when it directly addresses the procedural issue and is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. The court then applies the federal rule even if state law differs.
The court weighs the respective interests of the state and the federal judicial system to decide whether to follow state law or federal practice.
The court examines whether the prior decision articulates the standard of conduct that governs the client's specific factual situation and whether the attorney reasonably could have distinguished it.
The rule prohibits knowingly making a false statement of material fact. An affirmative claim of an unblemished record remains false even if the lawyer believes the prior discipline falls outside the question's scope.
…context of this entire line of cases. Suffice it that they do not serve to distinguish Colegrove v. Barrett, supra , which is on all fours with the present case, or to distinguish Kidd v. McCanless , 352 U. S. 920, in which the full Court without dissent, only five years ago, dismissed on authority of Colegrove v. Green…