32 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' "
Papasan v. Allain
478 U.S. 265 (1986) Cited 16,683 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"
Phillips v. County of Allegheny
515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 16,825 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside
578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 14,087 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion "in denying a motion for a class action determination which was untimely under the local rule"
Baraka v. McGreevey
481 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 1,675 times
Holding that a governor falls within the sphere of legislative activity when “advocating and promoting legislation”
Burton v. Teleflex Inc.
707 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2013) Cited 952 times
Holding the defendant must "offer a legitimate non-discriminatory justification for the adverse employment action."
Sprague v. General Motors Corp.
133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,011 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the principle that the terms of the SPD control when they conflict with the terms of the underlying plan does not apply when the SPD is merely silent on an issue because "[a]n omission from the summary plan description does not, by negative implication, alter the terms of the plan itself"
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"
Leveto v. Lapina
258 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 296 times
Holding that Summers exception did not apply where IRS agents detained defendant for eight hours, only permitted him supervised visits to the restroom, restricted him from communicating with others, and required him to ride with the agents to his home and then back to his office
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

Cook et al v. General Nutrition Corporation

32 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 Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"

Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion "in denying a motion for a class action determination which was untimely under the local rule"

Holding that a governor falls within the sphere of legislative activity when “advocating and promoting legislation”

Holding the defendant must "offer a legitimate non-discriminatory justification for the adverse employment action."

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"

Holding that Summers exception did not apply where IRS agents detained defendant for eight hours, only permitted him supervised visits to the restroom, restricted him from communicating with others, and required him to ride with the agents to his home and then back to his office

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