Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.

37 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Associated Builders, Inc. v. Ala. Power Co.
  505 F.2d 97· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-13 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the prospectus was not misleading as a matter of law, and therefore the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the federal securities laws.
• Gerard and Gemma Brault v. Town OF Milton
  527 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 42×
• Frigitemp Corp. v. Fin. Dynamics Fund, Inc.
  524 F.2d 275· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendants, as purchasers of a debenture, owed no fiduciary duty to the corporation under New York law and that the corporation and its shareholders lacked standing or failed to state a claim under federal securities laws for alleged non-disclosure of mark
• Shockley v. Jones
  823 F.2d 1068· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
• Anderson v. Coughlin
  700 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the complaint was insufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) motion because it lacked specific factual allegations and failed to provide notice of the claim. However, the failure to provide notice that the motion would be treated as a summary judgment was harmless.
• Ayatollah Syed M. J. Iqbal Jafree v. Barber
  689 F.2d 640· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-12 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend, as the mandamus claim was legally impossible and the civil rights claims lacked factual allegations of racial discrimination.
• D.P. Enters. v. Bucks Cnty. Cmty. Coll.
  725 F.2d 943· 3d Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on governmental immunity, as the plaintiffs' allegations, if true, could fall under an exception to the immunity statute.
• Griggs v. Hinds Junior Coll.
  563 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-17 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant leave to amend the complaint.
• Hepperle v. Johnston
  544 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for failure to state a cause of action, as the plaintiff might be able to prove facts supporting his claims, particularly regarding subsequent publications of libelous material.
• Madden v. Gluck
  815 F.2d 1163· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that allegations of a single fraudulent scheme, even if comprising multiple fraudulent acts, do not satisfy the 'pattern of racketeering activity' requirement for a RICO claim.
• Frazier v. Coughlin
  850 F.2d 129· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to consider all of the plaintiff's claims when dismissing the complaint, and that claims based on rules not properly filed may be valid if the plaintiff lacked notice.
• Patterson v. Ellis C. MacDOUGALL
  506 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se complaint sua sponte, as it stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) was improper.
• Sarter v. Mays
  491 F.2d 675· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Consumer Credit Protection Act without sufficient factual development.
• FRY Bros. Corp. v. The Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  614 F.2d 732· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a justiciable claim and that the Administrative Procedure Act does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction.
• Super Tire Eng'g Co. v. McCORKLE
  469 F.2d 911· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the case was not moot because the collective bargaining relationship is a continuing one, and the availability of state welfare benefits to strikers could still affect that relationship.
• Ulric Paul Giddings v. Chandler
  979 F.2d 1104· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 5×
  A criminal alien does not have standing to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to commence deportation proceedings under the Mandamus Act or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they do not fall within the 'zone of interest' of the relevant statute.
• Guidry v. Bank OF LaPLACE
  954 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a bank account is not a RICO enterprise and that the plaintiff's investment scheme did not involve securities. It affirmed dismissal of most state law claims but reversed dismissal of some negligence claims, remanding them without prejudice.
• Festa v. Local 3 Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  905 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the dismissal of the union claim with prejudice was improper, and modified the judgment to allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint against both defendants.
• Olen C. Faulk v. City OF Orlando
  731 F.2d 787· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint, when construed liberally and considered in its entirety, stated claims against the City for racial discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, but not against individual defendants.
• Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Catellus Dev. Corp.
  976 F.2d 1338· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 4×
  A party can be held liable under CERCLA as an 'operator' if they had authority to control the cause of contamination during disposal, and liability as a 'transporter' can extend to on-site dispersal of hazardous substances.
• Kenneth Leventhal & Co. v. Joyner Wholesale Co.
  736 F.2d 29· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Leventhal's third-party complaint was properly dismissed because the alleged liability of the third-party defendants was not dependent on or related to the main claim against Leventhal.
• Holder v. Nelson
  514 F.2d 1091· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action and denying the request for a three-judge court, as the claims presented were not insubstantial.
• Knudsen v. The Torrington Co.
  254 F.2d 283· 2d Cir.· 1958-04-18 ·cited 4×
  A sales agency contract, though personal, is delegable if the principal impliedly assented to changes in the business organization or personnel, and the surviving entity provides substantially what was bargained for.
• Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp.
  929 F.2d 1515· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 3×
  A party does not waive the right to appeal a dismissal of a claim if the claim was already dismissed on its merits and repleading it would be futile. The court also held that the actions of the appellee did not breach an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Oklah
• River City Mkts., Inc. v. Fleming Foods W., Inc.
  960 F.2d 1458· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 2×
  Although the district court erred in dismissing the RICO claims for failure to plead an enterprise, the appellate court affirms the dismissal because the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.
• Feick v. Fleener
  653 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the powers of attorney did not authorize the retention of counsel for the annulment proceedings, and the appellee's letter did not constitute a binding agreement or promise to pay legal fees.
• Sounds of Serv. Radio v. Islamorada
  344 F. Supp. 2d 1376· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-05 ·cited 1×
  Sounds of Service Radio sought a preliminary injunction to stop state court proceedings between itself and G & G Trading, Inc., but the federal district court denied the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice because the federal court lacked authority under the Anti-Injunct
• Henry v. Robey-Barber Ins. Servs. Corp.
  777 F. Supp. 1554· M.D. Fla.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, as pled, failed to establish that the insurance benefits were not provided under an employee benefit plan, and therefore the causes of action were preempted by ERISA.
• Rogers v. Fort Myers Police Dep't
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-05-04
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was deficient, failing to state a claim for relief and not providing fair notice to the defendants.
• Roberts v. Burtz
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-05-03
  The court dismissed the plaintiff's excessive force claim without prejudice, allowing him to file an amended complaint. Claims against defendants in their official capacities were dismissed, and claims against two defendants in their individual capacities were dismissed for insuf
• Branch v. Tampa Police
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-19
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because his allegations were too vague and lacked specific facts to support his constitutional claims. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend.
• Boatman v. Sawyer
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-10
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, even when construed liberally, failed to state a plausible claim for relief and did not comply with pleading rules.
• Bonham v. Dist. of Columbia Library Admin.
  989 F.2d 1242· D.C. Cir.· 1993-04-16
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, as the plaintiff might be able to prove facts entitling him to relief under the Establishment Clause.
• Wade v. Hopper
  993 F.2d 1246· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-17
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, properly dismissed the RICO and Bivens claims, and correctly applied res judicata to bar the unreasonable search claim.
• In re Lyondell Petrochemical Co. Sec. Litig. Joseph H. Levit v. Lyondell Petrochemical Co.
  984 F.2d 1050· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-29
  A company has no duty to disclose internal financial projections to the public, even if disclosed to a lender, unless those projections are based on existing negative factors known to the company and affect the veracity of forward-looking statements.
• Leydell Baker v. McNEIL Island Corr. Ctr.
  859 F.2d 124· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-12
  The court held that a prisoner's complaint alleging racial discrimination in denial of a prison job assignment stated a claim under Title VII, and the district court erred in dismissing it.
• Laurales v. Desha Cnty. Sch. Dist. # 4 OF Snowlake
  632 F.2d 72· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-20
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a district court's decision, holding that a tavern owner can be liable for patron injuries caused by third parties if the owner knew or should have known of the likelihood of general disorderly conduct, not solely based on knowledge of a specific