Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

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' "

Whitlock v. Brown

Holding that officers were protected by qualified immunity because criminal-conversion law was not sufficiently developed such that a well-trained officer would necessarily know that defendants' explanation for taking the property was material

Hemenway v. Peabody Coal Co.

Finding district court dismissal of previous class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction rather than on adequacy of the class immaterial in determining whether putative class members benefit from statute of limitations tolling and explaining why lower courts should not follow dicta in Jimenez v.Weinberger, 523 F.2d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 1975) that suggests statute of limitations should continue on appeal

Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court

Finding allegations sufficient to state cause of action for aggravation of disease against employer notwithstanding workers' compensation law where plaintiff alleged employer fraudulently concealed from him that he was suffering from disease caused by ingestion of asbestos, thereby preventing him from receiving treatment for disease and inducing him to continue working under hazardous conditions

Jensen v. Amgen Inc.

Trigones v. Bissonnette

Holding it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude the defendant's motive to cross-examine a witness for bias at a suppression hearing was similar to the motive he would have had at trial; noting "the stakes at trial would have been higher, but the stakes are almost always higher then (or at least different), and it is clear that in many cases the motive at a preliminary hearing is sufficiently similar to the motive at trial to bring the evidence within the Confrontation Clause's requirements . . . ."

Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Superior Court

In Hughes, four employees sued their aircraft company employer for work injuries incurred from exposure to various chemical substances at the workplace.

Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Section 3602 - Willful assault by employer; fraudulent concealment of injury; defective product manufactured by employer

Revealing that California's exclusive-remedy provision explicitly applies to "the employee or his or her dependents "