36 Cited authorities

  1. 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
  2. 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' "
  3. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,630 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
  4. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,606 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
  5. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA

    317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,205 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims
  6. Wisconsin v. Mitchell

    508 U.S. 476 (1993)   Cited 447 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a minor or speculative chilling effect does not trigger First Amendment scrutiny
  7. Bly-Magee v. California

    236 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,144 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding leave to amend should have been "freely given" pursuant to Rule 15 even though plaintiff failed in first amended complaint to plead fraud with specificity required by Rule 9(b)
  8. Ebeid ex Rel. U.S. v. Lungwitz

    616 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 511 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that qui tam plaintiffs must allege "reliable indicia that lead to a strong inference that claims were actually submitted"
  9. U.S. ex Rel. Hendow v. University of Phoenix

    461 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 316 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding an essential element of FCA liability is that there is an underlying false claim or fraudulent course of conduct
  10. U.S. ex Rel. Hutcheson v. Blackstone Medical

    647 F.3d 377 (1st Cir. 2011)   Cited 239 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that hospitals' claims for reimbursement of doctor's services using medical devices were "false" under the FCA where the doctors had accepted kickbacks from the medical device manufacturer
  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 346,412 times   923 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,956 times   317 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"
  13. Section 3729 - False claims

    31 U.S.C. § 3729   Cited 6,740 times   628 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable "any person" who knowingly causes false claims to be presented
  14. Section 301 - Short title

    21 U.S.C. § 301   Cited 2,428 times   48 Legal Analyses

    This chapter may be cited as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 21 U.S.C. § 301 June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §1, 52 Stat. 1040. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATE; POSTPONEMENT IN CERTAIN CASES Act June 23, 1939, ch. 242, §§1, 2, 53 Stat. 853, 854, provided that:"[SEC. 1] (a) The effective date of the following provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is hereby postponed until January 1, 1940: Sections 402(c) [342(c) of this title]; 403(e)(1) [343(e)(1) of this

  15. Section 331 - Prohibited acts

    21 U.S.C. § 331   Cited 1,513 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the sale of adulterated foods
  16. Section 1320a-7b - Criminal penalties for acts involving Federal health care programs

    42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b   Cited 1,445 times   314 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the solicitation or receipt of "remuneration" in exchange for referrals
  17. Section 352 - Misbranded drugs and devices

    21 U.S.C. § 352   Cited 739 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Setting labeling requirements for drug products
  18. Section 1395ww - Payments to hospitals for inpatient hospital services

    42 U.S.C. § 1395ww   Cited 608 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Providing for a wage-index adjustment
  19. Section 3287 - Wartime suspension of limitations

    18 U.S.C. § 3287   Cited 103 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Tolling statute of limitations for any offense involving fraud against the property of the United States until three years after the termination of hostilities
  20. Section 645.21 - PRESUMPTION AGAINST RETROACTIVE EFFECT

    Minn. Stat. § 645.21   Cited 106 times
    Stating that generally, a law is not construed to be retroactive unless the legislature clearly intended it to be retroactive
  21. Section 201.57 - Specific requirements on content and format of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products described in Section 201.56(b)(1)

    21 C.F.R. § 201.57   Cited 252 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Listing requirements for different subsections for indications, dosage, and clinical studies