11 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,142 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 273,590 times 368 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
Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing
526 U.S. 344 (1999) Cited 2,725 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, where defendant was faxed a courtesy copy of a filed complaint, defendant's time to remove is not triggered "by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service"
Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc.
859 F.2d 434 (6th Cir. 1988) Cited 2,437 times
Holding complaint must plead facts in support of material elements of claim
Mayer v. Mylod
988 F.2d 635 (6th Cir. 1993) Cited 1,379 times
Holding that opinions are actionable under § 10(b) when “the speaker does not believe the opinion and the opinion is not factually well-grounded”
Byrd v. Stone
94 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 1996) Cited 511 times
Holding that plaintiff demonstrated good cause for failing to timely serve defendants where the clerk's office failed to issue plaintiff's summons and failed to appoint a United States Marshal to serve the summons
Adams v. Alliedsignal Gen. Aviation Avionics
74 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 1996) Cited 256 times
Holding there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to extend Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 deadline even though the statute of limitation barred plaintiffs claims
McGath v. Hamilton Local Sch. Dist.
848 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D. Ohio 2012) Cited 34 times
Case No. 2:10–cv–1156. 2012-01-30 Joshua McGATH, et al., Plaintiffs v. HAMILTON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. Eric E. Willison, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiffs. Sandra R. McIntosh, Megan Marie Goeser, Freund Freeze & Arnold, Columbus, OH, for Defendants. JAMES L. GRAHAM Eric E. Willison, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiffs. Sandra R. McIntosh, Megan Marie Goeser, Freund Freeze & Arnold, Columbus, OH, for Defendants. ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge. This matter is before the court on defendants'
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 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 160,289 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Walker v. Dunn

11 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

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

Holding that, where defendant was faxed a courtesy copy of a filed complaint, defendant's time to remove is not triggered "by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service"

Holding complaint must plead facts in support of material elements of claim

Holding that opinions are actionable under § 10(b) when “the speaker does not believe the opinion and the opinion is not factually well-grounded”

Holding that plaintiff demonstrated good cause for failing to timely serve defendants where the clerk's office failed to issue plaintiff's summons and failed to appoint a United States Marshal to serve the summons

Holding there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to extend Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 deadline even though the statute of limitation barred plaintiffs claims

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time