25 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,477 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 276,716 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
Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 29,475 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal
Phillips v. County of Allegheny
515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 17,334 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
554 U.S. 471 (2008) Cited 1,845 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment"
Iqbal v. Hasty
490 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 1,837 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Twombly's plausibility standard "obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible"
Hecker v. Deere Co.
556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,223 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding the use of revenue-sharing for plan expenses did not amount to an ERISA violation
Weston v. Pennsylvania
251 F.3d 420 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 1,027 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding written reprimands were not adverse employment actions because they had not caused a "material change in the terms or conditions of his employment"
Arthur v. Maersk, Inc.
434 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2006) Cited 788 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "a period of eleven months from the commencement of an action to the filing of a motion for leave to amend is not, on its face, so excessive as to be presumptively unreasonable"
Jablonski v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
863 F.2d 289 (3d Cir. 1988) Cited 775 times
Holding that amendment of the complaint is futile if the amendment will not cure the deficiency in the original complaint or if the amended complaint cannot withstand a renewed motion to dismiss
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 335,322 times 160 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,084 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 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 93,795 times 92 Legal Analyses
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

Renfro et al v. Unisys Corporation et al

25 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 an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

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

Holding a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment"

Holding that Twombly's plausibility standard "obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible"

Holding the use of revenue-sharing for plan expenses did not amount to an ERISA violation

Holding written reprimands were not adverse employment actions because they had not caused a "material change in the terms or conditions of his employment"

Holding "a period of eleven months from the commencement of an action to the filing of a motion for leave to amend is not, on its face, so excessive as to be presumptively unreasonable"

Holding that amendment of the complaint is futile if the amendment will not cure the deficiency in the original complaint or if the amended complaint cannot withstand a renewed motion to dismiss

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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

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