§Why CasetextPricing

Cook et al v. General Nutrition Corporation

BRIEF in Opposition re Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

30 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. County of Allegheny

    515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 16,807 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

  2. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,645 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss

  3. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. v. UPMC

    627 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 547 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "plausibility" standard does not become a "probability" standard in complex cases

  4. Lackner v. Glosser

    2006 Pa. Super. 14 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)   Cited 406 times
    Holding that "[a]ppellate arguments which fail to adhere to these rules may be considered waived, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived. Arguments not appropriately developed include those where the party has failed to cite any authority in support of a contention."

  5. Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost

    565 Pa. 571 (Pa. 2001)   Cited 410 times
    Holding that whether a contract is ambiguous is not resolved in a vacuum but that contractual terms are ambiguous when there is "more than one reasonable interpretation when applied to a particular set of facts"

  6. Hunt v. U.S. Tobacco Co.

    538 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 322 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that private plaintiffs pursuing claims under "all substantive sections of the Consumer Protection Law, fraud-based or not," must prove justifiable reliance

  7. Berg Chilling Systems, Inc. v. Hull Corp.

    435 F.3d 455 (3d Cir. 2006)   Cited 263 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the corporations' choice of New Jersey law to govern their asset-purchase agreement did not resolve the question of which state's de-facto-merger exception should apply

  8. Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am.

    693 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2012)   Cited 139 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an insurance contract should not be interpreted so as to render certain words superfluous

  9. Allegheny Energy, Inc. v. DQE, Inc.

    171 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 181 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Listing preliminary injunction factors

  10. In re Unisys Corp., Retiree Medical Benefit

    58 F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 189 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer who "used terms such as 'lifetime' and 'for life' to describe the duration of retiree medical benefits, while at the same time expressly reserving the company's right to terminate the plans under which those benefits were provided, did not render plans 'internally inconsistent' and therefore ambiguous"

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 156,116 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,916 times   1234 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"