§Why CasetextPricing

Copass v. New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc. et al

BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss

50 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 267,684 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 280,676 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. United States v. Bestfoods

    524 U.S. 51 (1998)   Cited 1,449 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ownership and control is insufficient to demonstrate an alter-ego relationship

  4. Brooks v. Ross

    578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,357 times
    Holding that a claim is plausible if the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will yield evidence supporting the allegations

  5. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Walgreen Co.

    631 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 956 times
    Holding an unjust enrichment claim to the Rule 9(b) standard

  6. Maldonado v. Fontanes

    568 F.3d 263 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 875 times
    Holding that a consensus of three circuits was sufficient to establish that the killing of a pet was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

  7. Watterson v. Page

    987 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993)   Cited 1,447 times
    Holding that an allegation that a psychologist and a state social worker conspired to present false testimony and withhold material evidence from the court failed because all witnesses at judicial proceedings have an absolute immunity from damages liability based on their testimony

  8. City of Sausalito v. O'Neill

    386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 421 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a municipality must allege injuries to "its own 'proprietary interests,' " including the "municipality's responsibilities, powers, and assets"

  9. The Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College

    889 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1989)   Cited 663 times
    Holding that "the question of whether it might have been error for the court to have denied leave to amend is not before us, because plaintiffs never requested it"

  10. De Jesus v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

    87 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 491 times
    Holding that it is appropriate to deny leave to amend "when a party has been given ample prior opportunity to allege a claim"

  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 362,493 times   962 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 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,876 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  13. Section 34-20-1-1 - Application of article

    Ind. Code § 34-20-1-1   Cited 168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that IPLA governs all actions brought by a user or consumer against a manufacturer or seller for physical harm caused by a product

  14. Section 34-20-2-1 - Grounds for action

    Ind. Code § 34-20-2-1   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Except as provided in section 3 of this chapter, a person who sells, leases, or otherwise puts into the stream of commerce any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer or to the user's or consumer's property is subject to liability for physical harm caused by that product to the user or consumer or to the user's or consumer's property if: (1) that user or consumer is in the class of persons that the seller should reasonably foresee as being subject to the harm

  15. Section 34-6-2-77 - "Manufacturer"

    Ind. Code § 34-6-2-77   Cited 21 times
    Providing the definition of manufacturer for purposes of Indiana Code § 34-20

  16. Section 34-6-2-29 - "Consumer"

    Ind. Code § 34-6-2-29   Cited 13 times
    Defining "[c]onsumer" as "any individual who uses or consumes the product"

  17. Section 34-6-2-136 - "Seller"

    Ind. Code § 34-6-2-136   Cited 9 times

    "Seller", for purposes of IC 34-20, means a person engaged in the business of selling or leasing a product for resale, use, or consumption. IC 34-6-2-136 Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 33-1-1.5-2(5). As added by P.L. 1-1998, SEC.1.

  18. Section 34-6-2-105 - "Physical harm"

    Ind. Code § 34-6-2-105   Cited 7 times

    (a) "Physical harm", for purposes of IC 34-20, means bodily injury, death, loss of services, and rights arising from any such injuries, as well as sudden, major damage to property. (b) The term does not include gradually evolving damage to property or economic losses from such damage. IC 34-6-2-105 Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 33-1-1.5-2(2). As added by P.L. 1-1998, SEC.1.