§Why CasetextPricing

Tacy v. New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc et al

MEMORANDUM in Support of 21 MOTION to Dismiss

41 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 263,477 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 276,716 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Brooks v. Ross

    578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,323 times
    Holding that a claim is plausible if the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will yield evidence supporting the allegations

  4. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Walgreen Co.

    631 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 941 times
    Holding an unjust enrichment claim to the Rule 9(b) standard

  5. Maldonado v. Fontanes

    568 F.3d 263 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 874 times
    Holding that a consensus of three circuits was sufficient to establish that the killing of a pet was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

  6. Watterson v. Page

    987 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993)   Cited 1,436 times
    Holding that an allegation that a psychologist and a state social worker conspired to present false testimony and withhold material evidence from the court failed because all witnesses at judicial proceedings have an absolute immunity from damages liability based on their testimony

  7. City of Sausalito v. O'Neill

    386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 419 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a municipality must allege injuries to "its own 'proprietary interests,' " including the "municipality's responsibilities, powers, and assets"

  8. The Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College

    889 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1989)   Cited 656 times
    Holding that "the question of whether it might have been error for the court to have denied leave to amend is not before us, because plaintiffs never requested it"

  9. Kirksey v. R.Y Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    168 F.3d 1039 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 382 times
    Holding that the plaintiff defaulted when he failed to respond to arguments raised in a motion to dismiss

  10. Holman v. State of Ind.

    211 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 270 times
    Holding that Title VII does not provide a remedy when both sexes are treated badly because Title VII is predicated on discrimination

  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 357,835 times   950 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 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,431 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  13. Section 34-20-1-1 - Application of article

    Ind. Code § 34-20-1-1   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses

    This article governs all actions that are: (1) brought by a user or consumer; (2) against a manufacturer or seller; and (3) for physical harm caused by a product; regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the action is brought. IC 34-20-1-1 Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 33-1-1.5-1. As added by P.L. 1-1998, SEC.15.

  14. Section 34-20-2-1 - Grounds for action

    Ind. Code § 34-20-2-1   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Except as provided in section 3 of this chapter, a person who sells, leases, or otherwise puts into the stream of commerce any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer or to the user's or consumer's property is subject to liability for physical harm caused by that product to the user or consumer or to the user's or consumer's property if: (1) that user or consumer is in the class of persons that the seller should reasonably foresee as being subject to the harm

  15. Section 34-6-2-77 - "Manufacturer"

    Ind. Code § 34-6-2-77   Cited 20 times
    Providing the definition of manufacturer for purposes of Indiana Code § 34-20

  16. Section 34-6-2-29 - "Consumer"

    Ind. Code § 34-6-2-29   Cited 13 times
    Defining "[c]onsumer" as "any individual who uses or consumes the product"

  17. Section 34-6-2-136 - "Seller"

    Ind. Code § 34-6-2-136   Cited 9 times

    "Seller", for purposes of IC 34-20, means a person engaged in the business of selling or leasing a product for resale, use, or consumption. IC 34-6-2-136 Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 33-1-1.5-2(5). As added by P.L. 1-1998, SEC.1.