35 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
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,697 times 365 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' "
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"
Hanna v. Plumer
380 U.S. 460 (1965) Cited 3,174 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072
ECA & Local 134 Ibew Joint Pension Trust v. Jp Morgan Chase Co.
553 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 909 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements that the defendant "'set the standard' for 'integrity' and that it would 'continue to reposition and strengthen [its] franchises with a focus on financial discipline'" were nonactionable puffery given their generality
Rocanova v. Equitable Life
83 N.Y.2d 603 (N.Y. 1994) Cited 973 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "[p]unitive damages are not recoverable for an ordinary breach of contract"
Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med.
428 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 496 times
Holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate antitrust injury where their "economic expert conceded that he had performed no analysis of the consumer effect of defendants’ purportedly anticompetitive conduct"
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner
417 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 461 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding venue improper unless "significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff's claim . . . occurred in the district in question, even if other material events occurred elsewhere"
Crigger v. Fahnestock and Co., Inc.
443 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 317 times
Holding that 801(d)(D) proponent must establish existence of agency relationship, that statement was made in course of that relationship, and that statement relates to matter within scope of agency
Kaempe v. Myers
367 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2004) Cited 300 times
Holding that public records, including agency documents, are "subject to judicial notice on a motion to dismiss"
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 345,981 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. . . ."
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 38,931 times 316 Legal Analyses
Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 27,824 times 197 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
28 U.S.C. § 1338 Cited 5,398 times 71 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory v. Ropes & Gray LLP et al

35 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 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 in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072

Holding that statements that the defendant "'set the standard' for 'integrity' and that it would 'continue to reposition and strengthen [its] franchises with a focus on financial discipline'" were nonactionable puffery given their generality

Holding "[p]unitive damages are not recoverable for an ordinary breach of contract"

Holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate antitrust injury where their "economic expert conceded that he had performed no analysis of the consumer effect of defendants’ purportedly anticompetitive conduct"

Holding venue improper unless "significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff's claim . . . occurred in the district in question, even if other material events occurred elsewhere"

Holding that 801(d)(D) proponent must establish existence of agency relationship, that statement was made in course of that relationship, and that statement relates to matter within scope of agency

Holding that public records, including agency documents, are "subject to judicial notice on a motion to dismiss"

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. . . ."

Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"