Neitzke v. Williams

Holding that "an in forma pauperis pro se complaint may only be dismissed as frivolous ... when the petitioner cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in law or in fact"

Conley v. Gibson

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"

Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital

Holding that a conspiracy against a North Carolina hospital had "a substantial effect on interstate commerce," and hence was covered by the Sherman Act, because it could, inter alia, reduce the hospital's purchases of out-of-state medicines and supplies

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept

Holding that a cognizable gender discrimination claim could be brought by a female domestic violence victim where the victim alleged police denied protection and made misogynistic comments including that "he did not blame [the victim's] husband for hitting her, because of the way she was 'carrying on'"

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.

Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"

Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., Marin County

Holding that personal service in a state is sufficient for establishing personal jurisdiction

Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen

Holding that personal jurisdiction existed where “[t]he brunt of the harm ... was felt in California,” and the defendant “knew Panavision would likely suffer harm there because, although at all relevant times Panavision was a Delaware limited partnership, its principal place of business was in California”

Harris Rutsky Co. v. Bell Clements

Holding that "100% control through stock ownership" and "shar[ing] the same offices . . . and some of the same staff" did not make one company the alter ego of the other

Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., Inc.

Holding that creditor lacks RICO standing unless he shows injury other than that shown by shareholders

Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

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

Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Section 1404 - Change of venue

Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

Section 1406 - Cure or waiver of defects

Recognizing that transfer is proper to any district or division in which the action could have been brought

Section 410.10 - Generally

Allowing for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements

Section 1013 - Requirements for service by mail

Rule 8.212 - Service and filing of briefs