26 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,525 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 268,313 times   366 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 5,677 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. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,255 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
  5. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,294 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
  6. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,667 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) )
  7. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.

    489 U.S. 141 (1989)   Cited 566 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state law prohibiting people from copying unpatentable boat hull designs was preempted because it sought to provide patent-like protection to boat designs not protectable by patent laws and it "contravenes the ultimate goal of public disclosure and use that is the centerpiece of federal patent policy"
  8. Handy–Clay v. City of Memphis

    695 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2012)   Cited 804 times
    Holding that a § 1983 plaintiff had stated a valid claim under the First Amendment where the plaintiff claimed that she was terminated from her job after reporting alleged public corruption and misuse of government funds
  9. Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.

    552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 377 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction"
  10. Freeman Industries v. Eastman Chemical Co.

    172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005)   Cited 308 times
    Holding that sections 47-25-101 and -102 of the TTPA "reflect a clear intent to protect and afford a remedy to ultimate consumers"
  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 347,794 times   925 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Section 256 - Correction of named inventor

    35 U.S.C. § 256   Cited 665 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Permitting correction of inventorship "[w]henever . . . through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part"
  13. Section 20-2-214 - Jurisdiction of persons unavailable to personal service in state - Classes of actions to which applicable

    Tenn. Code § 20-2-214   Cited 283 times
    Permitting service over nonresidents for any action or claim for relief arising from "any basis not inconsistent with the constitution of [Tennessee] or the United States"
  14. Section 262 - Joint owners

    35 U.S.C. § 262   Cited 100 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Providing for joint ownership of patents