§Why CasetextPricing

Jorgensen & Company v. Sutherland et al

BRIEF in Opposition

11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,948 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss

  2. Ellison v. Robertson

    357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 664 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that [the ISP] satisfied the requirements of § 512" because the record showed that the ISP "allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded," indicating it "had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers"

  3. Cowell v. Palmer Township

    263 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 657 times
    Holding that plaintiffs' takings claim was not ripe because they did not file an inverse-condemnation petition

  4. Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc.

    930 F.2d 277 (3d Cir. 1991)   Cited 638 times
    Holding that reviewing court would not consider an issue raised on appeal but not considered by jury at trial

  5. Leyse v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n

    804 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2015)   Cited 160 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court erred under Rule 12(g) by allowing a defendant to file successive motion to dismiss raising argument not raised in initial motion to dismiss

  6. Ukawabutu v. Morton

    997 F. Supp. 605 (D.N.J. 1998)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that the proper response to a habeas corpus petition is an answer prepared in accordance with habeas corpus rules and that a motion to dismiss is appropriate only if, in its discretion, the district court directs or permits the respondent to file such a motion, either before or after filing of answer

  7. Laigo Realty v. Purcell

    77 Mass. App. Ct. 162 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    No. 09-P-1369. February 5, 2010. June 30, 2010. Present: RAPOZA, C.J., McHUGH, GRAHAM, JJ. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss. Partnership, Accounting, General partner, Limited partnership. Contract, Performance and breach. Negligence, Accountant. Consumer Protection Act, Businessman's claim. A plaintiff seeking to sue a limited liability partnership in Superior Court did not, by naming one general partner, make the partnership itself a party to the action [163-165]; therefore, the trial court judge

  8. La Mar-Gate, Inc. v. Spitz

    252 N.J. Super. 303 (App. Div. 1991)   Cited 8 times

    Submitted October 17, 1991 — Decided December 4, 1991. On appeal from the Superior Court of Cape May County, Law Division. Before Judges KING, DREIER and GRUCCIO. Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell Hippel, attorneys for appellants ( Frederick T. Cunningham, on the brief). James E. Rafferty, attorney for respondent ( James E. Rafferty, on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by DREIER, J.A.D. Dr. Eugene B. Spitz appeals from a directed verdict holding him responsible for a partnership note

  9. 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 357,280 times   950 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  10. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 93,618 times   92 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

  11. Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,830 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure