Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,625 times 365 Legal AnalysesHolding 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' "
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (2007) Cited 61,647 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"
York v. Association of Bar of City of New York
286 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 636 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a volunteer for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York was not an employee under Title VII
Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer
513 U.S. 179 (1995) Cited 175 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that an undefined statutory term should be given its natural, ordinary meaning
Kaluczky v. City of White Plains
57 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 389 timesHolding that once an appellate court has "jurisdiction over some questions on appeal may [it] exercise its discretion to take pendent jurisdiction over independent nonappealable, but related questions"
Low v. Linkedin Corporation
900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Cited 101 timesHolding plaintiffs satisfied Article III standing even though they had failed to allege reliance on particular representations, and even though their FAL claims were dismissed with prejudice on that basis
Viacom International Inc. v. Youtube Inc.
253 F.R.D. 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 36 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the SCA "contains no exception for disclosure of such communications pursuant to civil discovery requests"
In re Hulu Privacy Litigation
No. C 11-03764 LB (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) Cited 8 times 5 Legal AnalysesDefining PII as, in part, “information that identifies a specific person and ties that person to particular videos that the person watched”
In re Hulu Privacy Litigation
No. C 11-03764 LB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) Cited 9 times 3 Legal AnalysesNo. C 11-03764 LB 08-10-2012 IN RE HULU PRIVACY LITIGATION LAUREL BEELER ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION In this putative class action, viewers of Hulu's on-line video content allege that Hulu wrongfully disclosed their video viewing selections and personal identification information to third parties such as online ad networks, metrics companies (meaning, companies that track data), and social networks, in violation
U.S. Engine Prod. Inc. v. Agcs Marine Ins. Co.
769 F. Supp. 2d 626 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 7 timesNo. 11 Civ. 0155(VM). 2011-03-7 U.S. ENGINE PRODUCTION, INC. et al., Plaintiffs,v.AGCS MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants. Thomas Michael Grasso, Martin F. Casey, Casey & Barnett, LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. DECISION AND ORDER Thomas Michael Grasso, Martin F. Casey, Casey & Barnett, LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge. Plaintiffs U.S. Engine Production, Inc. and Hana Cohen (“Plaintiffs”) brought this action against defendants AGCS Marine
Section 2710 - Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records
18 U.S.C. § 2710 Cited 207 times 72 Legal AnalysesProhibiting disclosure of "personally identifiable information concerning" consumer of video rental establishment without consent