81 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 280,791 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
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co.
313 U.S. 487 (1941) Cited 10,651 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Erie doctrine applies to conflict-of-law rules
Goodman v. Praxair
494 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2007) Cited 1,825 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint under Rule 12(b) as time-barred where the complaint did not allege facts sufficiently clear to conclude that the statute of limitations had run
Pension Fund v. Marine Bank
85 N.Y.2d 20 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 1,552 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the definition of deceptive acts and practices under GBL § 349 includes "representations or omissions"
Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc.
885 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 1,897 times
Holding that a complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it "d[id] not specify which plaintiff received which prospectus, or which plaintiff made purchases through the stockbroker defendants"
Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
357 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 971 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is to be strictly construed against removal
Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co.
174 Ill. 2d 482 (Ill. 1996) Cited 988 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements "not made by Suzuki but by Suzuki dealers . . . cannot be the basis of a common law fraud count against Suzuki unless plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the dealers were the agents of Suzuki"
Stutman v. Chemical Bank
95 N.Y.2d 24 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 780 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that statutory consumer-fraud claims do "not require proof of actual reliance," but do require causation
Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.
397 Md. 108 (Md. 2007) Cited 508 times
Holding that to succeed on a private claim under the MCPA, the plaintiff must have suffered injury "as a result of" the plaintiff's "reliance on" the defendant's misrepresentation
Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co.
286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 575 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the absence of a controlling decision from a state's highest court on an issue of state law, a federal court sitting in diversity must predict how the court would rule by considering the relevant decisions of the state's appellate courts
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,455 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 349 - Deceptive acts and practices unlawful
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 Cited 5,000 times 112 Legal Analyses
Granting "any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section" the right to "bring an action in his own name"
Section 56:8-2 - Fraud, etc., in connection with sale or advertisement of merchandise or real estate as unlawful practice
N.J. Stat. § 56:8-2 Cited 1,294 times 13 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting "any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact"
Section 5-203 - Ignorance of cause of action induced by fraud
Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-203 Cited 63 times
Providing for equitable tolling of a statute where a plaintiff's ability to discover his injury was obstructed by the adverse party's fraud

Doll v. Ford Motor Company

81 Cited authorities

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

Holding that Erie doctrine applies to conflict-of-law rules

Holding that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint under Rule 12(b) as time-barred where the complaint did not allege facts sufficiently clear to conclude that the statute of limitations had run

Holding that the definition of deceptive acts and practices under GBL § 349 includes "representations or omissions"

Holding that a complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it "d[id] not specify which plaintiff received which prospectus, or which plaintiff made purchases through the stockbroker defendants"

Holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is to be strictly construed against removal

Holding that statements "not made by Suzuki but by Suzuki dealers . . . cannot be the basis of a common law fraud count against Suzuki unless plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the dealers were the agents of Suzuki"

Holding that statutory consumer-fraud claims do "not require proof of actual reliance," but do require causation

Holding that to succeed on a private claim under the MCPA, the plaintiff must have suffered injury "as a result of" the plaintiff's "reliance on" the defendant's misrepresentation

Holding that, in the absence of a controlling decision from a state's highest court on an issue of state law, a federal court sitting in diversity must predict how the court would rule by considering the relevant decisions of the state's appellate courts

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Granting "any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section" the right to "bring an action in his own name"

Prohibiting "any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact"

Providing for equitable tolling of a statute where a plaintiff's ability to discover his injury was obstructed by the adverse party's fraud