§Why CasetextPricing

Immunomedics, Inc. v. the Board of Directors of Roger Williams Medical Center et al

RESPONSE in Opposition

30 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 253,736 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

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 267,563 times   365 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. Jones v. Bock

    549 U.S. 199 (2007)   Cited 12,871 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PLRA exhaustion is mandatory, and prisoners cannot bring unexhausted claims into federal court

  4. Phillips v. County of Allegheny

    515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 16,879 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

  5. Gomez v. Toledo

    446 U.S. 635 (1980)   Cited 5,388 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant bears burden of pleading defenses

  6. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.

    563 U.S. 754 (2011)   Cited 806 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."

  7. Hedges v. U.S.

    404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 2,930 times
    Holding the SIAA's two-year statute of limitations, previously codified at 46 U.S.C. § 745, was not jurisdictional and therefore subject to equitable tolling

  8. Schmidt v. Skolas

    770 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2014)   Cited 1,215 times
    Holding that courts may take judicial notice of SEC filings that are matters of public record

  9. Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.

    545 U.S. 193 (2005)   Cited 100 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that uses which are not ultimately included in a submission to the FDA are nonetheless exempted by the safe harbor

  10. In re Adams Golf, Inc.

    381 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because the “new allegations consist ... [of] facts not necessarily curative of the pleading problems at issue.”

  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 346,952 times   923 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 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 156,766 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,054 times   1053 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"