Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 265,662 times 364 Legal AnalysesHolding 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' "
Woodfield v. Bowman
193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 349 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "boilerplate" defenses failed to give the plaintiff notice
Wyshak v. City Nat. Bank
607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 642 timesHolding that plaintiff was not prejudiced by assertion of statute of limitations defense in amended answer because the defense would have been "effective at the outset of [plaintiff's] suit."
State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court
31 Cal.4th 1026 (Cal. 2003) Cited 229 times 4 Legal AnalysesRecognizing that the defense of mitigation of damages applies to "many different sorts of legal claims" including statutory sexual harassment claims
American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull
305 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 100 timesHolding that absent Indian tribes were necessary parties where “the interest of the tribes arises from terms in bargained contracts, and the interest is substantial”
Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
249 F.R.D. 29 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 78 timesFinding predominance requirement satisfied where case involved use of form contracts
United States v. Thornburg
82 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 72 timesHolding even if the party holding the deed of trust instrument fails "to hand [it] over" to the note holder, the note holder has the right to foreclose
Simon v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.
895 F.2d 1304 (11th Cir. 1990) Cited 50 timesHolding a $5,000,000 punitive damage award to be excessive and finding the maximum amount of punitive damages in that case to be $1,000,000
Marcin Eng'g, LLC v. Founders at Grizzly Ranch, LLC
219 F.R.D. 516 (D. Colo. 2003) Cited 21 timesDenying motion to modify scheduling order on account of carelessness of party substituting counsel
In re Dynamic Random Access Memory
538 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 10 timesNo. 06-15636. 8-14-2008 In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Centerprise International, Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Micron Technology, Inc.; Micron Semiconductor Products Inc.; Crucial Technology, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Mosel-Vitelic, Inc.; Mosel-Vitelic Corporation (USA); Infineon Technologies, AG; Infineon Technologies North America Corp.; Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc.; Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.; Elpida Memory, Inc.; Elpida
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 344,767 times 920 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 19 - Required Joinder of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 Cited 9,504 times 54 Legal AnalysesHolding a person must be joined if disposing the action in the person's absence may leave an existing party subject to a "substantial" risk of incurring inconsistent obligations
Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
15 U.S.C. § 1 Cited 2,895 times 64 Legal AnalysesMaking illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"
Section 16720 - Trust
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16720 Cited 422 times 6 Legal AnalysesProhibiting any combination to prevent competition in the "sale or purchase of any commodity"