56 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,784 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
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 6,252 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding extrinsic materials were not "integral" to the complaint because the complaint "d[id] not refer to the[m]" and "plaintiffs apparently did not rely on them in drafting it"
Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island Rail Road
70 N.Y.2d 382 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 2,933 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, where plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to exercise "due care" in the design of a railroad project, plaintiff's negligence allegations were "merely a restatement, albeit in slightly different language, of the 'implied' contractual obligations asserted in the cause of action for breach of contract. Moreover, the damages plaintiff allegedly sustained as a consequence of defendant's violation of a 'duty of due care' in designing the project were clearly within contemplation of the written agreement."
Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc.
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 9320 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 650 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that survivors' limited right to control the burial of a deceased relative did not imply a general, common-law property right in body parts
A M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 738 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions
Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.
79 N.Y.2d 540 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 927 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in New York, "a party may not insulate itself from damages caused by grossly negligent conduct" through an exculpatory clause
Lockheed Martin. v. Network Solutions
194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 628 times
Holding that the court must consider “the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third party's means of infringement”
Martin v. Briggs
235 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) Cited 558 times
Holding that a 24-year delay might have prejudiced the defendants, but prejudice could not be determined as a matter of law
Kerman v. City of New York
374 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 390 times
Holding a plaintiff is “entitled to be compensated for [his] loss of liberty” “independently of his claims of physical, mental, emotional, or economic injury”
Mas v. Two Bridges Associates
75 N.Y.2d 680 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 359 times
Holding that in contribution, defendants with "common liability to plaintiff" are obliged to pay their "ratable part of the loss"
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 345,982 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 156,250 times 193 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 1114 - Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers
15 U.S.C. § 1114 Cited 7,909 times 88 Legal Analyses
Holding liable "Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant — use in commerce any reproduction . . . of a registered mark . . . in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion."

Baidu, Inc. et al v. Register.com, Inc.

56 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 extrinsic materials were not "integral" to the complaint because the complaint "d[id] not refer to the[m]" and "plaintiffs apparently did not rely on them in drafting it"

Holding that survivors' limited right to control the burial of a deceased relative did not imply a general, common-law property right in body parts

Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions

Holding that, in New York, "a party may not insulate itself from damages caused by grossly negligent conduct" through an exculpatory clause

Holding that the court must consider “the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third party's means of infringement”

Holding that a 24-year delay might have prejudiced the defendants, but prejudice could not be determined as a matter of law

Holding a plaintiff is “entitled to be compensated for [his] loss of liberty” “independently of his claims of physical, mental, emotional, or economic injury”

Holding that in contribution, defendants with "common liability to plaintiff" are obliged to pay their "ratable part of the loss"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding liable "Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant — use in commerce any reproduction . . . of a registered mark . . . in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion."