§Why CasetextPricing

Cates et al v. Crystal Clear Technologies LLC et al

MEMORANDUM in Support of 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

28 Cited authorities

  1. 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' "

  2. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

    534 U.S. 506 (2002)   Cited 16,723 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"

  3. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States

    370 U.S. 294 (1962)   Cited 1,813 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding judgment final and appealable where district court passed on every prayer for relief in the complaint and ordered full divestiture of stock, although court had not yet approved a divestiture plan

  4. Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

    745 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 2,359 times
    Holding that a complaint may not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss

  5. United States v. Topco Associates

    405 U.S. 596 (1972)   Cited 649 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an agreement between competitors at the same level of the market structure to allocate territories in order to minimize competition" is a per se violation

  6. Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Co.

    365 U.S. 320 (1961)   Cited 613 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a contract is exclusive, even though it does not contain specific agreements not to use the goods of a competitor, if its "practical effect" is to prevent such use

  7. Doe v. HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc.

    46 S.W.3d 191 (Tenn. 2001)   Cited 403 times
    Holding contract to be unenforceable because an essential term—the price—was indefinite

  8. Freeman Industries v. Eastman Chemical Co.

    172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005)   Cited 307 times
    Holding that sections 47-25-101 and -102 of the TTPA "reflect a clear intent to protect and afford a remedy to ultimate consumers"

  9. Bayberry Associates v. Jones

    783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990)   Cited 425 times
    Holding denial of class certification interlocutory and not appealable even though trial court directed entry of final judgment pursuant to equivalent of F.R. Civ. P. 54(b)

  10. Maris Distributing v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

    302 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 155 times
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding deposition-related costs because all of the contested depositions were of individuals on opponent's witness list

  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 344,481 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. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,891 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"

  13. Rule 23.1 - Derivative Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1   Cited 1,945 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Treating unincorporated associations and corporations similarly for derivative suits

  14. Section 48-56-401 - Derivative suits

    Tenn. Code § 48-56-401   Cited 24 times

    (a) A proceeding may be brought in the right of a domestic or foreign corporation to procure a judgment in its favor by: (1) Any member or members having five percent (5%) or more of the voting power or by fifty (50) members, whichever is less; or (2) Any director. (b) In any such proceeding, each plaintiff shall be a member or director at the time of bringing the proceeding. (c) A complaint in a proceeding brought in the right of a corporation must be verified and allege with particularity the demand

  15. Section 548 - Development of competition and diversity in video programming distribution

    47 U.S.C. § 548   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Purpose The purpose of this section is to promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity by increasing competition and diversity in the multichannel video programming market, to increase the availability of satellite cable programming and satellite broadcast programming to persons in rural and other areas not currently able to receive such programming, and to spur the development of communications technologies. (b) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for a cable operator, a satellite cable