§Why CasetextPricing

Aetna Inc. v. Kraidy et al

First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

25 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 251,689 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

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,662 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' "

  3. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,588 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  4. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,179 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  5. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,260 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

  6. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,815 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  7. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,550 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )

  8. Frederico v. Home Depot

    507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,212 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a dismissal order "without prejudice" was a final order because the plaintiff elected to stand on her original complaint rather than amend or refile it

  9. Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. v. Wood

    592 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,350 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of each of its members"

  10. O'Connor v. Sandy Lane

    496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 1,126 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a vacation company purposefully contacted Pennsylvania by mailing brochures and calling Pennsylvania residents

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 344,767 times   920 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,845 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  13. Section 54.1-2929 - Licenses required

    Va. Code § 54.1-2929

    No person shall practice or hold himself out as qualified to practice medicine, osteopathy, chiropractic, or podiatry without obtaining a license from the Board of Medicine as provided in this chapter. Va. Code § 54.1-2929 Code 1950, § 54-281; 1966, c. 657, § 54-281.3; 1970, c. 69; 1988, c. 765; 1996, cc. 937, 980. Amended by Acts 1996, § cc. 937, 980. Amended by Acts 1988, c. 765. Amended by Acts 1970, c. 69. Amended by Acts 1966, c. 657, § 54-281.3.

  14. Section 54.1-2962.01 - Anatomic pathology services; fees

    Va. Code § 54.1-2962.01

    A. No practitioner licensed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall charge a fee for anatomic pathology services that is greater than the amount billed to the practitioner for the actual performance of such anatomic pathology services when such services are (i) performed by a person other than the practitioner or (ii) performed by a person not under the supervision of the practitioner. B. A practitioner may charge a fee for specimen collection and transportation, provided the fee