§Why CasetextPricing

In Re: Aqua Dots Products Liability Litigation

REPLY

37 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,629 times   366 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' "

  2. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

    529 U.S. 861 (2000)   Cited 787 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”

  3. Windy City v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs.

    536 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 653 times
    Holding that "unfair" practices claims are not subject to Rule 9(b) pleading because "neither fraud nor mistake is an element of unfair conduct under" the ICFA

  4. Limestone v. Village

    520 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 656 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the continuing violation doctrine simply “allow suit to be delayed until a series of wrongful acts blossoms into an injury on which suit can be brought”

  5. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co.

    174 Ill. 2d 482 (Ill. 1996)   Cited 957 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"

  6. Frank v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    292 A.D.2d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 400 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of complaint alleging that plaintiffs bought cars with seat backs that had not yet collapsed, but were prone to doing so

  7. Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co.

    201 Ill. 2d 134 (Ill. 2002)   Cited 338 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that those who "know the truth" do not have a valid ICFA claim

  8. Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc., Peoria

    142 F.3d 1041 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 303 times
    Holding that conditional payment "does not moot the appeal because the appellate court can fashion effective relief . . . by ordering that the sum paid . . . be returned"

  9. Briehl v. General Motors Corp.

    172 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 1999)   Cited 263 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a breach of warranty claim for a defective anti-lock brake system was properly dismissed because the brakes functioned properly in the Plaintiff's experience

  10. Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories

    283 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2002)   Cited 242 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they "concede they were not among the injured" by an allegedly defective drug but only claim economic injury without defining that injury

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,081 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  12. Section 1261 - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 1261   Cited 249 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining "hazardous substance" as one that is "flammable or combustible," among other qualifying characteristics

  13. Section 2064 - Substantial product hazards

    15 U.S.C. § 2064   Cited 116 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Defining “substantial product hazard” to be a product that either fails to comply with an applicable safety standard or contains a product defect

  14. Section 1500.18 - Banned toys and other banned articles intended for use by children

    16 C.F.R. § 1500.18   Cited 19 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a)Toys and other articles presenting mechanical hazards. Under the authority of sections 2(f)(1)(D) and 24 of the act and pursuant to the provisions of section 3(e) of the act, the Commission has determined that the following types of toys or other articles intended for use by children present a mechanical hazard within the meaning of section 2(s) of the act because in normal use, or when subjected to reasonably foreseeable damage or abuse, the design or manufacture presents an unreasonable risk

  15. Section 1117.4 - Time for filing a report

    16 C.F.R. § 1117.4

    (a) A subject firm must report within 24 hours of obtaining information which reasonably supports the conclusion that an incident occurred in which a child (regardless of age) choked on a marble, small ball, or latex balloon or on a marble, small ball, latex balloon, or other small part contained in a toy or game and, as a result of that incident the child died, suffered serious injury, ceased breathing for any length of time, or was treated by a medical professional. Section 1117.5 of this part