53 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,855 times   280 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
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,629 times   367 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' "
  3. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 28,036 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
  4. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,983 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
  5. Los Angeles v. Lyons

    461 U.S. 95 (1983)   Cited 7,549 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold
  6. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    505 U.S. 504 (1992)   Cited 2,404 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express warranty was not a "requirement ... imposed under State law" because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor
  7. Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n

    554 U.S. 724 (2008)   Cited 1,238 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was a reasonable expectation that a congressional candidate would be subject to a federal campaign finance law in the future when he "made a public statement expressing his intent" to run for the seat in the future
  8. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

    552 U.S. 312 (2008)   Cited 1,034 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”
  9. O'Shea v. Littleton

    414 U.S. 488 (1974)   Cited 4,103 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects"
  10. Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing

    564 U.S. 604 (2011)   Cited 749 times   143 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state tort law that required generic drug manufacturers to provide adequate warning labels was preempted where federal law required manufacturers to use the same labels as their brand-name counterparts
  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 348,148 times   929 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe

    28 U.S.C. § 2072   Cited 1,812 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases
  13. Section 321 - Definitions; generally

    21 U.S.C. § 321   Cited 1,169 times   165 Legal Analyses
    Defining “new drug”
  14. Section 501.212 - Application

    Fla. Stat. § 501.212   Cited 159 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Disallowing " claim for personal injury or death or a claim to property other than the property that is the subject of the consumer transaction."
  15. Section 379r - National uniformity for nonprescription drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 379r   Cited 99 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Labeling requirements for nonprescription drugs
  16. Section 10.25 - Initiation of administrative proceedings

    21 C.F.R. § 10.25   Cited 77 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Including forms under 21 C.F.R. § 314.50 among the forms that constitute a "petition"
  17. Section 330.10 - Procedures for classifying OTC drugs as generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded, and for establishing monographs

    21 C.F.R. § 330.10   Cited 52 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Subjecting "[a]ny product which fails to conform to an applicable monograph" to regulatory action
  18. Section 201.327 - Over-the-counter sunscreen drug products; required labeling based on effectiveness testing

    21 C.F.R. § 201.327   Cited 20 times   6 Legal Analyses

    The following provisions apply to sunscreen products containing aminobenzoic acid, avobenzone, cinoxate, dioxybenzone, ensulizole, homosalate, meradimate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, oxybenzone, padimate O, sulisobenzone, titanium dioxide, trolamine salicylate, or zinc oxide, alone or in combination. The provisions do not apply to sunscreen products marketed under approved new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications. (a)Principal display panel. In addition to the statement