§Why CasetextPricing

Kaufman v. Alexander et al

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss

26 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 253,484 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. Frederico v. Home Depot

    507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,220 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a dismissal order "without prejudice" was a final order because the plaintiff elected to stand on her original complaint rather than amend or refile it

  3. Aronson v. Lewis

    473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984)   Cited 1,588 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff must demonstrate that directors were beholden to controlling person

  4. Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, Jenrette

    845 A.2d 1031 (Del. 2004)   Cited 665 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a corporate stockholder who brings a direct action “must demonstratethat the duty breached was owed to the stockholder and that he or she can prevail without showing an injury to the corporation”

  5. Rales v. Blasband

    634 A.2d 927 (Del. 1993)   Cited 901 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that three of eight directors were interested parties and that the amended complaint raised a reasonable doubt as to the independence of two remaining directors, making demand futile

  6. Tracinda Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler

    502 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 283 times
    Finding no express requirement in Rule 16(f) that a party must act in bad faith prior to a Court awarding sanctions

  7. Blasband v. Rales

    971 F.2d 1034 (3d Cir. 1992)   Cited 136 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting only that demand futility "depends upon the facts of each case"

  8. Bader v. Anderson

    179 Cal.App.4th 775 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 65 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Sustaining demurrer to fourth amended complaint

  9. United States v. Hill

    506 U.S. 546 (1993)   Cited 16 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 91-1421 Argued November 2, 1992 Decided January 25, 1993 Under § 57(a)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 57(a)(8) (1976 ed.), "the excess of the deduction for depletion . . . over the adjusted basis of" "property (as defined in [§] 1614)" is an "ite[m] of tax preference" on which a taxpayer must pay a "minimum tax" for the tax year in question. See § 56(a). In computing the minimum taxes due on their interests

  10. Shaev v. Saper

    320 F.3d 373 (3d Cir. 2003)   Cited 51 times
    In Shaev, the Third Circuit held that a proxy statement seeking shareholder approval of a year-2000 amendment to the company's management incentive plan was misleading.

  11. Section 162 - Trade or business expenses

    26 U.S.C. § 162   Cited 3,611 times   179 Legal Analyses
    Denying deductions for illegal bribes, kickbacks, etc.

  12. Section 1.162-27 - Certain employee remuneration in excess of $1,000,000 not deductible for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1994, and for taxable years beginning prior to January 1, 2018

    26 C.F.R. § 1.162-27   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining the chief executive officer of a publicly-held corporation as an employee for tax purposes