green
Positive treatment
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Lema v. The Board of Trustees of the California State University System
See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating a complaint requires sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims 28 1 382 F.3d 969 , 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974 (2005) (Eleventh 2 Amendment barred state law claims). 3 4.
discussed
Cited "see"
North Sails Group, LLC v. Boards & More GMBH
Accordingly, [the court has] upheld the assertion of jurisdiction over defendants who have purposefully ‘reach[ed] out beyond’ their [s]tate and into another by, for example, entering a contractual relationship that ‘envisioned continuing and [wide reaching] contacts’ in the forum [s]tate . . . .’’ (Citations omitted.) Id., 285 ; see Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, supra, 1025 . 15 Plainly, Connecticut has a general interest in ‘‘providing a forum in which [its] residents can seek redress for injuries caused by out-of-state actors.’’ (Internal quot…
cited
Cited "see"
CMI Roadbuilding Inc v. Wiregrass Construction Company Inc
See Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070, 1075 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
CMI Roadbuilding Inc v. Wiregrass Construction Company Inc
See Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070, 1075 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Agape Flights, Inc. v. Covington Aircraft Engines, Inc.
See Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070, 1080 (10th Cir.2004), cert. denied 544 U.S. 974 , 125 S.Ct. 1826 , 161 L.Ed.2d 723 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
North Carolina Ex Rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Authority
(2×)
See McMellon v. United States, 387 F.3d 329, 342 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974 , 125 S.Ct. 1828 , 161 L.Ed.2d 724 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Montano v. Bonnie Brae Convalescent Hospital, Inc.
Accordingly, the defense is waived.”) (citation omitted); Doran v. Del Taco, 2005 WL 3478136 , *1 (C.D.Cal.2005) (granting defendants leave to plead affirmative defense that barrier removal not readily achievable in amended answer); see also Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 819 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied 544 U.S. 974 , 125 S.Ct. 1837 , 161 L.Ed.2d 724 (2005), (“Failure to plead an affirmative defense ... results in a waiver of that defense.”), the court declines to decide that issue here. 63.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Independent Living Center v. City of Los Angeles
Although the government defendants must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 , 127 S.Ct. at 1965 ; Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 ; see also Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974 , 125 S.Ct. 1828 , 161 L.Ed.2d 724 (2005) (“[T]he court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
California Ex Rel. Lockyer, Attorney General of California
v.
Dynegy, Inc.
v.
Dynegy, Inc.
04-1028.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 18, 2005.
Published
CALIFORNIA EX REL. LOCKYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
v.
DYNEGY, INC., ET AL.
No. 04-1028.
Supreme Court of United States.
April 18, 2005.
1
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 375 F. 3d 831 and 387 F. 3d 966.