35 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 260,621 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 274,046 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. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

    534 U.S. 506 (2002)   Cited 17,084 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"
  4. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,359 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
  5. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,793 times   508 Legal Analyses
    Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
  6. Scheuer v. Rhodes

    416 U.S. 232 (1974)   Cited 22,504 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity
  7. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 58,985 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"
  8. Shady Grove Orthopedic v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    559 U.S. 393 (2010)   Cited 1,187 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"
  9. American Pipe Construction Co. v. Utah

    414 U.S. 538 (1974)   Cited 2,144 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"
  10. Directv, Inc. v. Tyreesh

    487 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,380 times
    Holding that Kentucky's taxing scheme designed to attract certain kinds of business did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause
  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 354,767 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 160,541 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  13. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 35,615 times   1241 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
  14. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,886 times   190 Legal Analyses
    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
  15. Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation

    28 U.S.C. § 1407   Cited 7,101 times   106 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts
  16. Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe

    28 U.S.C. § 2072   Cited 1,828 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases