§Why CasetextPricing

Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine et al

Memorandum in Opposition re Motion to Dismiss

51 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,542 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' "

  2. Erickson v. Pardus

    551 U.S. 89 (2007)   Cited 61,623 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

  3. United States v. Grinnell Corp.

    384 U.S. 563 (1966)   Cited 2,642 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."

  4. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare

    534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,430 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this court may affirm on the basis of any ground fairly supported by the record

  5. Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens

    546 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,323 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a class-based equal protection claim arises when the "law is applied in a discriminatory manner or imposes different burdens on different classes of people"

  6. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,285 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

  7. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

    468 U.S. 85 (1984)   Cited 664 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NCAA restrictions on televising college football games are subject to Rule of Reason analysis for the “critical” reason that “horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all”

  8. National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. U.S.

    435 U.S. 679 (1978)   Cited 741 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding agreement among engineers to refuse to discuss prices with potential customers until after the initial selection of an engineer was per se illegal

  9. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar

    421 U.S. 773 (1975)   Cited 803 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a minimum fee schedule enforced by the Virginia state bar did not fall within the Parker exception because the fee schedule was not mandated by the Virginia Supreme Court and thus it could not "fairly be said that the State of Virginia through its Supreme Court Rules required the anticompetitive activities"

  10. Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists

    476 U.S. 447 (1986)   Cited 554 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deference is due FTC's assessment of business practices