22 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 262,920 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 276,185 times 369 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
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (2007) Cited 64,160 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"
Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 59,120 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
Phillips v. County of Allegheny
515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 17,313 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile
Malleus v. George
641 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 2011) Cited 2,705 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding inquiry is normally broken into three parts: identifying the elements of a claim, reviewing the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then looking at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluating whether all of the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged.
Bistrian v. Levi
696 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2012) Cited 2,160 times
Holding the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a substantive due process violation under the "expressed intent to punish" prong where placement of the plaintiff in solitary confinement was allegedly a vindictive response to a challenge brought by the plaintiff's lawyer
Gould Elecs. Inc. v. U.S.
220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2000) Cited 2,687 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "law of the place" in the sixth prong of § 1346(b) is jurisdictional
Krouse v. American Sterilizer Company
126 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 1,719 times
Holding that the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas applies to retaliation claims under the ADA
Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr.
691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) Cited 737 times
Holding that whether the case could proceed under a mixed-motive instruction was not relevant because the case could proceed under "the more taxing McDonnell Douglas standard"
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
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 161,761 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 Cited 50,778 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
Section 2615 - Prohibited acts
29 U.S.C. § 2615 Cited 5,193 times 23 Legal Analyses
Granting prescriptive rights

Murphy v. Mclane Eastern, Inc. et al

22 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

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

Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

Holding the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a substantive due process violation under the "expressed intent to punish" prong where placement of the plaintiff in solitary confinement was allegedly a vindictive response to a challenge brought by the plaintiff's lawyer

Holding that the phrase "law of the place" in the sixth prong of § 1346(b) is jurisdictional

Holding that the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas applies to retaliation claims under the ADA

Holding that whether the case could proceed under a mixed-motive instruction was not relevant because the case could proceed under "the more taxing McDonnell Douglas standard"

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

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

Granting prescriptive rights