9 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 253,227 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
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 267,097 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' "
Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 28,667 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
Hensley Mfg. v. Propride
579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) Cited 907 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fair use defense was ascertainable as a matter of law from the complaint and attached exhibits
Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.
203 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2000) Cited 914 times
Holding that a failure to grant leave amounting to an abuse of discretion is harmless error if the amendment would be futile
Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C
717 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2013) Cited 159 times
Holding that plaintiffs might be entitled to equitable tolling on the basis of fraudulent concealment but “these are questions for summary judgment or for trial, and they should not be resolved on a motion to dismiss”
Janikowski v. Bendix Corp.
823 F.2d 945 (6th Cir. 1987) Cited 200 times
Holding that denial of a motion to amend the complaint was an abuse of discretion because the motion was filed before discovery had been completed
Mathews v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.
953 F. Supp. 2d 811 (S.D. Ohio 2013) Cited 2 times
Case No. 3:12–cv–314. 2013-07-12 Alvin MATHEWS, Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., Defendant. Daniel Adam Osborn, Philip Jeremy Miller, Osborn Law, P.C., New York, NY, Frank E. Piscitelli, Jr., Highland Heights, OH, Robert Geoffrey Germany, Pittman Germany, Roberts, Welsh, LLP, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff. Diane E. Lifton, Gibbons P.C., New York, NY, Joe Gregory Hollingsworth, Donald W. Fowler, Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Katharine R. Latimer, Patrick R. Harkins, Robert E. Johnston, Hollingsworth
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,681 times 91 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

Shy, et al v. Navistar Int'l Corp, et al

9 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

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 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 the fair use defense was ascertainable as a matter of law from the complaint and attached exhibits

Holding that a failure to grant leave amounting to an abuse of discretion is harmless error if the amendment would be futile

Holding that plaintiffs might be entitled to equitable tolling on the basis of fraudulent concealment but “these are questions for summary judgment or for trial, and they should not be resolved on a motion to dismiss”

Holding that denial of a motion to amend the complaint was an abuse of discretion because the motion was filed before discovery had been completed

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