59 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 265,830 times 364 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' "
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 235,893 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,035 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Scott v. Harris
550 U.S. 372 (2007) Cited 11,671 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is at least sometimes reasonable for an officer to intentionally collide with a suspect's vehicle during a pursuit
Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp.
186 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,374 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, when considering a motion to dismiss, the court "may consider some materials that are part of the public record or do not contradict the complaint, as well as materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings"
Westcott v. City of Omaha
901 F.2d 1486 (8th Cir. 1990) Cited 1,093 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding distinction between Rule 12(b) and Rule 12(c) to be "purely formal" when addressing lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Morton v. Becker
793 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1986) Cited 1,026 times 1 Legal Analyses
Explaining that a defendant can only be held liable for a constitutional violation under § 1983 if their actions caused the constitutional violation
Hanten v. the School District, Riverview GDNS
183 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1999) Cited 514 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that a one-sided expectation of a subcontractor award was insufficient to create a property interest
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota
426 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. 1988) Cited 479 times
Holding that the single act exception applies when plaintiff's claim rests solely upon the University's negligence in failing to disclose the risks and the manufacturer's recommendations associated with insertion of an IUD
Murphy v. F.D.I.C
208 F.3d 959 (11th Cir. 2000) Cited 308 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "transferee court should apply its own interpretation of federal law"
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 344,948 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,261 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,278 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,310 times 183 Legal Analyses
Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
Section 516.120 - What actions within five years
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120 Cited 688 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that "[a]ll actions upon contracts" shall be brought within five years
Section 541.05 - VARIOUS CASES, SIX YEARS
Minn. Stat. § 541.05 Cited 568 times 8 Legal Analyses
Providing a six-year limitation period for negligence claims and a four-year limitation period for strict-liability claims
Section 336.2-725 - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONTRACTS FOR SALE
Minn. Stat. § 336.2-725 Cited 85 times
Establishing four-year limitations period for warranty claims
Section 400.2-725 - Statute of limitations in contracts for sale
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.2-725 Cited 34 times
(1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it. (2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance
Section 541.31 - CONFLICT OF LAWS; LIMITATION PERIODS
Minn. Stat. § 541.31 Cited 34 times
Subdivision 1.General. (a) Except as provided by subdivision 2 and section 541.33, if a claim is substantively based: (1) upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies; or (2) upon the law of more than one state, the limitation period of one of those states chosen by the law of conflict of laws of this state applies. (b) The limitation period of this state applies to all other claims. Subd. 2.Action arising out of state; resident plaintiff. If a cause of action arises
Section 10004 - Prohibition of hazing
Me. Stat. tit. 20-A § 10004
1.Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context indicates otherwise, the following terms have the following meanings. A. "Injurious hazing" means any action or situation, including harassing behavior, that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health of any school personnel or a student enrolled at an institution in this State or any activity expected of a student as a condition of joining or maintaining membership in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses or

Hendrix v. Mentor Corporation et al

59 Cited authorities

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 summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that it is at least sometimes reasonable for an officer to intentionally collide with a suspect's vehicle during a pursuit

Holding that, when considering a motion to dismiss, the court "may consider some materials that are part of the public record or do not contradict the complaint, as well as materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings"

Holding distinction between Rule 12(b) and Rule 12(c) to be "purely formal" when addressing lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Explaining that a defendant can only be held liable for a constitutional violation under § 1983 if their actions caused the constitutional violation

Finding that a one-sided expectation of a subcontractor award was insufficient to create a property interest

Holding that the single act exception applies when plaintiff's claim rests solely upon the University's negligence in failing to disclose the risks and the manufacturer's recommendations associated with insertion of an IUD

Holding that a "transferee court should apply its own interpretation of federal law"

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

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

Stating that "[a]ll actions upon contracts" shall be brought within five years

Providing a six-year limitation period for negligence claims and a four-year limitation period for strict-liability claims

Establishing four-year limitations period for warranty claims