21 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 251,437 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 265,409 times 364 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
In re Katrina Canal
495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 4,526 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that flood exclusion provisions in State Farm policy covered damage caused by flooding due to breached levees
Great Plains Tr. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
313 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,567 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an order denying remand based on improper joinder is reviewed de novo
Cuvillier v. Taylor
503 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 1,365 times
Holding that "to survive a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, a complaint 'does not need detailed factual allegations,' but must provide the plaintiff's grounds for entitlement to relief-including factual allegations that when assumed to be true 'raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Financial Review Services, Inc.
29 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2000) Cited 652 times
Holding that enforcing a party's legal rights is not considered tortious interference
Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp.
56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 77 (Tex. 2014) Cited 328 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party does not seek or acquire services when “when it merely arranges for a service to be provided to its customers, even if the party indirectly benefits from the provision of that service”
Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's International, Inc.
227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2000) Cited 246 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza." tagline, which was non-actionable by itself, was "expanded and given additional meaning" when used in "comparison ads" suggesting a factual claim about competitors’ ingredient quality
Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Technologies, Inc.
166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 225 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a jury demand has been made, an issue is submitted to the jury without objection, and "the possibility that the jury's findings might be advisory was never mentioned until after the verdict was returned," the verdict is binding under Rule 39(c)
Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation Inc.
361 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2004) Cited 188 times
Holding that "this Court is bound to disregard any errors, including the admission of expert testimony, that do not affect the substantial rights of the parties"

Reveal Energy Services Inc. et al v. Dawson et al

21 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding that flood exclusion provisions in State Farm policy covered damage caused by flooding due to breached levees

Holding that an order denying remand based on improper joinder is reviewed de novo

Holding that enforcing a party's legal rights is not considered tortious interference

Holding that a party does not seek or acquire services when “when it merely arranges for a service to be provided to its customers, even if the party indirectly benefits from the provision of that service”

Holding that "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza." tagline, which was non-actionable by itself, was "expanded and given additional meaning" when used in "comparison ads" suggesting a factual claim about competitors’ ingredient quality

Holding that where a jury demand has been made, an issue is submitted to the jury without objection, and "the possibility that the jury's findings might be advisory was never mentioned until after the verdict was returned," the verdict is binding under Rule 39(c)

Holding that "this Court is bound to disregard any errors, including the admission of expert testimony, that do not affect the substantial rights of the parties"