109 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,626 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    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' "
  3. Stern v. Marshall

    564 U.S. 462 (2011)   Cited 3,738 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a litigant forfeited a statutory right, noting the litigant "does not explain why" the relevant "statutory limitation may not be . . . waived"
  4. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell

    538 U.S. 408 (2003)   Cited 2,672 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process
  5. United States v. Lopez

    514 U.S. 549 (1995)   Cited 2,373 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act "exceeds the authority of Congress to ‘regulate Commerce’ " as it "neither regulates a commercial activity nor" "contains jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce" (quoting U.S. Const. Art. I § 8 cl. 3 )
  6. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A.

    544 U.S. 528 (2005)   Cited 1,157 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a substantive due process inquiry has "no proper place" in Takings doctrine, while distinguishing Nollan and Dolan as a special application of unconstitutional conditions doctrine for Takings
  7. Gonzales v. Raich

    545 U.S. 1 (2005)   Cited 1,145 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because “Congress had a rational basis” for concluding that a statute implements Commerce Clause power, the statute falls within the scope of congressional “authority to ‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate Commerce ... among the several States' ”
  8. Concrete Pipe Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Trust

    508 U.S. 602 (1993)   Cited 1,496 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that withdrawal liability as applied to Concrete Pipe, the employer, did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the imposition of withdrawal liability was clearly rational inasmuch as the employer's liability was based on a proportion of its contributions during its participation in the plan
  9. Arista Records v. Doe 3

    604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 2,761 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he Twombly plausibility standard . . . does not prevent a plaintiff from pleading facts alleged upon information and belief where the facts are peculiarly within the possession and control of the defendant, or where the belief is based on factual information that makes the inference of culpability plausible"
  10. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

    529 U.S. 861 (2000)   Cited 787 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”
  11. Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

    17 U.S.C. § 106   Cited 3,745 times   107 Legal Analyses
    Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”
  12. Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3294   Cited 2,789 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"
  13. Section 301 - Preemption with respect to other laws

    17 U.S.C. § 301   Cited 1,407 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Stating that when "legal or equitable rights ... are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright ... no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State"
  14. Section 377.30 - [Operative until 1/1/2029] Commencement by personal representation or successor in interest

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.30   Cited 386 times
    Granting to the successor the right to sue if no probate has been commenced
  15. Section 377.32 - [Operative until 1/1/2029] Affidavit or declaration by successor in interest

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.32   Cited 314 times
    Stating requirements of a successor in interest declaration
  16. Section 109 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord

    17 U.S.C. § 109   Cited 235 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Describing the "first sale" doctrine
  17. Section 602 - Infringing importation or exportation of copies or phonorecords

    17 U.S.C. § 602   Cited 96 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the importation of copies “the making of which either constituted an infringement of copyright, or which would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable”
  18. Section 550 - Action to establish liability for which decedent protected by insurance

    Cal. Prob. Code § 550   Cited 67 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, an action to establish the decedent's liability for which the decedent was protected by insurance may be commenced or continued against the decedent's estate without the need to join as a party the decedent's personal representative or successor in interest. (b) The remedy provided in this chapter is cumulative and may be pursued concurrently with other remedies. Ca. Prob. Code § 550 Enacted by Stats. 1990, Ch. 79.

  19. Section 58 - Personal representative

    Cal. Prob. Code § 58   Cited 63 times
    Defining a "personal representative" as an "executor, administrator, administrator with the will annexed, special administrator, successor personal representative."
  20. Section 44 - Heir

    Cal. Prob. Code § 44   Cited 12 times

    "Heir" means any person, including the surviving spouse, who is entitled to take property of the decedent by intestate succession under this code. Ca. Prob. Code § 44 Enacted by Stats. 1990, Ch. 79.