83 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,459 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
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,817 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill
484 U.S. 343 (1988) Cited 11,099 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding district courts have discretion whether to dismiss state law claims after all the federal claims are dismissed and explaining the factors courts should consider when doing so
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.
561 U.S. 247 (2010) Cited 1,458 times 177 Legal Analyses
Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction
Wyeth v. Levine
555 U.S. 555 (2009) Cited 1,432 times 101 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,575 times 109 Legal Analyses
Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
542 U.S. 692 (2004) Cited 1,164 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that no "private cause of action" had been Congressionally authorized, and thus, plaintiff was "not entitled to a remedy"
Baker v. Carr
369 U.S. 186 (1962) Cited 5,227 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"
Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council
530 U.S. 363 (2000) Cited 983 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions
Nemet Chevrolet v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.
591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) Cited 3,041 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a website did not contribute to alleged illegality
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 345,620 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
Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Cited 61,716 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"
Section 1961 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 1961 Cited 14,946 times 72 Legal Analyses
Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

Daobin et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

83 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 defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

Holding district courts have discretion whether to dismiss state law claims after all the federal claims are dismissed and explaining the factors courts should consider when doing so

Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

Holding that no "private cause of action" had been Congressionally authorized, and thus, plaintiff was "not entitled to a remedy"

Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"

Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions

Holding that a website did not contribute to alleged illegality

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

Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include