499 U.S. 585 (1991) Cited 1,944 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that forum-selection clause in cruise passengers' form contract was reasonable and enforceable where there was "no indication" that the designated forum was chosen to "discourag[e] cruise passengers from pursing legitimate claims"
Holding that "[w]here plaintiff has actual notice of all the information in the movant's papers and has relied upon these documents in framing the complaint the necessity of translating a Rule 12(b) motion into one under Rule 56 is largely dissipated" and affirming the district court's consideration of a stock purchase agreement, offering memorandum, and stock warrant that were "integral to [plaintiffs'] complaint"
Affirming order denying leave to amend after scheduling order deadline because "[t]he record [wa]s devoid of evidence supporting plaintiffs' contention that good cause existed for the District Court to modify its scheduling order"
Holding that although the court declined to consider a stock purchase agreement, offering memorandum and warrant on a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, it could have viewed them without converting that motion into one for summary judgment where the non-moving party had notice of these documents because they were either in their possession or they had used them in bringing the action
Holding that a court may rescind a release agreement "where it finds either mutual mistake or one party's unilateral mistake coupled with some fraud . . . of the other party"
Holding that, pursuant to the Act, a bank was immune from defamation claim brought by its former managing director on the ground that the bank allegedly reported that he had transferred unclaimed accounts to the bank instead of allowing it to escheat to the state