550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,542 times 365 Legal Analyses
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' "
Holding extrinsic materials were not "integral" to the complaint because the complaint "d[id] not refer to the[m]" and "plaintiffs apparently did not rely on them in drafting it"
Holding that " court may consider a res judicata defense on a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss when the court's inquiry is limited to the plaintiff's complaint, documents attached or incorporated therein, and materials appropriate for judicial notice"
Holding that “[c]ourts must look to the underlying claim and the nature of the relief sought to determine the applicable period of limitation [to a declaratory judgment action] * * *”, and that “a court's inquiry focuses on ‘the substance of action to identify the relationship out of which the claim arises and the relief sought’ * * *.” (quoting Solnick, 49 N.Y.2d at 229, 425 N.Y.S.2d 68, 401 N.E.2d 190)
Holding that 801(d)(D) proponent must establish existence of agency relationship, that statement was made in course of that relationship, and that statement relates to matter within scope of agency
Finding an IP address an insufficient basis to identify a defendant because "the actual device that performed the allegedly infringing activity could have been owned by a relative or guest of the account owner, or even an interloper without the knowledge of the owner"
380 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 176 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding online retail store did not provide adequate notice when the website did not prompt customer to review the site's "Terms and Conditions" and the link to the terms was not prominently displayed
841 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) Cited 150 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that, when a consumer is prompted to examine terms of sale located on another page available via hyperlink, "[w]hether or not the consumer bothers to look is irrelevant" because "[f]ailure to read a contract before agreement to its terms does not retrieve a party of its obligations under the contract"
Holding district court should have dismissed GBL § 349 claim at 12(b) stage on grounds that "a reasonable consumer would not have been misled by [defendant's] conduct"