§Why CasetextPricing

Langendorf v. Skinnygirl Cocktails, LLC et al

RESPONSE

33 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 261,602 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 274,949 times   368 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Scheuer v. Rhodes

    416 U.S. 232 (1974)   Cited 22,525 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity

  4. Kost v. Kozakiewicz

    1 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 1993)   Cited 3,436 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where appellant fails to raise an issue in its opening brief, "the appellant normally has abandoned and waived that issue on appeal and it need not be addressed by the court of appeals"

  5. Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran Berman

    38 F.3d 1380 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 2,948 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding time limit to file an EEOC charge may be tolled “where the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been prevented from asserting his or her rights” but noting that a “plaintiff who fails to exercise this reasonable diligence may lose the benefit of [equitable tolling]”

  6. United States v. W. T. Grant Co.

    345 U.S. 629 (1953)   Cited 2,255 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although defendant had "disclaimed any intention" to revive the challenged conduct, "[s]uch a profession does not suffice to make a case moot although it is one of the factors to be considered in determining the appropriateness of granting an injunction against the now-discontinued acts"

  7. Avery v. State Farm

    216 Ill. 2d 100 (Ill. 2005)   Cited 752 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims of non-Illinois plaintiffs insufficient where the only connection to Illinois is the headquarters of the defendant and the fact that a scheme "was disseminated" from Illinois

  8. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co.

    174 Ill. 2d 482 (Ill. 1996)   Cited 968 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"

  9. Semerenko v. Cendant Corp.

    223 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 633 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that securities fraud plaintiffs could not prove reasonable reliance on financial statements after they were informed that the statements contained accounting irregularities

  10. In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation

    214 F.3d 395 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 308 times
    Holding that the district court erred in considering "facts beyond the corners of the complaints"

  11. 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 355,868 times   945 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 2201 - Creation of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2201   Cited 24,926 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

  13. Section 810 ILCS 5/2-313 - Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample

    810 ILCS 5/2-313   Cited 145 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. (c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis

  14. Section 810 ILCS 5/2-607 - Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over

    810 ILCS 5/2-607   Cited 122 times

    (1) The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted. (2) Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted and if made with knowledge of a non-conformity cannot be revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the non-conformity would be seasonably cured but acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this Article for non-conformity. (3) Where a tender has been accepted (a) the buyer must within a reasonable