51 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 255,314 times 280 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 269,063 times 367 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' "
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 6,628 times
Holding that notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of constitutionally protected interest coupled with Article 78 post-deprivation remedy satisfied due process
ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.
493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 3,898 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that because "a plaintiff must show . . . a primary violation by the controlled person" in order to "establish a prima facie case of control[-]person liability," a plaintiff who "fails to allege any primary violation . . . cannot establish control[-]person liability"
Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,261 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island Rail Road
70 N.Y.2d 382 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 2,941 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."
Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen
141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,152 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that personal jurisdiction existed where “[t]he brunt of the harm ... was felt in California,” and the defendant “knew Panavision would likely suffer harm there because, although at all relevant times Panavision was a Delaware limited partnership, its principal place of business was in California”
Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc.
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 9320 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 656 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
Ross v. Louise Wise Services
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 3793 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 607 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it would not be appropriate to punish an adoption agency for its 1960's era policy of not disclosing adopted children's mental health records in part because mental health professionals of that era "thought that mental illness could be avoided if a child were placed in a loving environment and that disclosure of birth parents' emotional disturbances would negatively affect the child's bonding with the adoptive parents"
In re Sharp Intern. Corp.
403 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 638 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff must satisfy specific pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) to state actual fraudulent transfer claim under New York law
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 348,617 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
Fed. R. Evid. 201 Cited 28,558 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."
Section 1114 - Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers
15 U.S.C. § 1114 Cited 7,948 times 90 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.

51 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 notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of constitutionally protected interest coupled with Article 78 post-deprivation remedy satisfied due process

Holding that because "a plaintiff must show . . . a primary violation by the controlled person" in order to "establish a prima facie case of control[-]person liability," a plaintiff who "fails to allege any primary violation . . . cannot establish control[-]person liability"

Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

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 plaintiff must satisfy specific pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) to state actual fraudulent transfer claim under New York law

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

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."