43 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 266,691 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 279,746 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
  3. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.

    510 U.S. 517 (1994)   Cited 2,915 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
  4. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept

    901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 16,507 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a cognizable gender discrimination claim could be brought by a female domestic violence victim where the victim alleged police denied protection and made misogynistic comments including that "he did not blame [the victim's] husband for hitting her, because of the way she was 'carrying on'"
  5. Swartz v. KPMG LLP

    476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,946 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”
  6. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.

    467 U.S. 752 (1984)   Cited 1,460 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary have a "complete unity of interest" because "their objectives are common" and "their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousness, but one"
  7. United States v. Grinnell Corp.

    384 U.S. 563 (1966)   Cited 2,693 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."
  8. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,480 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"
  9. Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.

    479 U.S. 104 (1986)   Cited 688 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Clayton Act plaintiff "must show a threat of antitrust injury" to warrant injunctive relief
  10. In re Glenfed, Inc. Securities Litigation

    42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,728 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs may not "merely proclaim in the most conclusory of fashion that the defendants made false statements."
  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 361,353 times   960 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 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,831 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,114 times   335 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
  14. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 18,392 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices
  15. Section 15 - Suits by persons injured

    15 U.S.C. § 15   Cited 5,756 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."
  16. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 3,250 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Forbidding every "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States"
  17. Section 16720 - Trust

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16720   Cited 429 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting any combination to prevent competition in the "sale or purchase of any commodity"
  18. Section 16726 - Every trust void

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16726   Cited 82 times

    Except as provided in this chapter, every trust is unlawful, against public policy and void. Ca. Bus. and Prof'l. Code § 16726 Added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 526.

  19. Section 16725 - Not unlawful to promote competition

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16725   Cited 6 times

    It is not unlawful to enter into agreements or form associations or combinations, the purpose and effect of which is to promote, encourage or increase competition in any trade or industry, or which are in furtherance of trade. Ca. Bus. and Prof'l. Code § 16725 Added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 526.