28 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 209,562 times   342 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory allegations that the defendants acted unlawfully were insufficient to state a claim
  2. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

    534 U.S. 506 (2002)   Cited 14,006 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 1,688 times   23 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 2,021 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 604 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court erred in applying rule of reason to a joint venture's market division agreement for developing, producing, and selling a common brand
  6. Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Co.

    365 U.S. 320 (1961)   Cited 569 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 377 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 258 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 352 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. Apani Southwest, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises

    300 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2002)   Cited 124 times
    Holding marketer did not violate antitrust laws by entering into exclusive agreement with city to sell bottled water for ten years
  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 270,437 times   785 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 23.1 - Derivative Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1   Cited 1,682 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a verified complaint for shareholder derivative suits
  13. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 1,393 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Listing contracts, combinations, and conspiracies as lists of possible agreements in violation of the antitrust laws
  14. 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

  15. Section 48-56-401 - Derivative suits

    Tenn. Code § 48-56-401   Cited 21 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