Case Citator › Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc.

Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Questioned by some courts
Court
D.C. Circuit
Citation
525 F.3d 8
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
2009–2013
Questioned by some courts
At least one reviewed court has questioned this case’s reasoning or continued validity. No reviewed court has overruled it. Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc.'s interpretation of federal pleading requirements has been questioned, but the D.C.
More on how this was screened

Circuit has not decided whether Iqbal displaced it. All 38 flagged citations have been read. The two opinions discussing that unresolved question are listed below; the other opinions applied the decision or discussed changes to other precedents. Its separate holding allowing new issues in a district court trademark opposition action was not challenged in these opinions.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

38 later cases cite Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc.; 38 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Questioned

  • The D.C. Circuit left open the government's argument that Iqbal invalidated Aktieselskabet's interpretation of Twombly.

    Tooley v. Napolitano · D.C. Circuit · filed

    The government argues that Iqbal extended Twombly, thus invalidating a construction of Twombly previously advanced by this court in Aktieselskabet AF 21 November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, 525 F.3d 8 (D.C.Cir.2008). While we do not reject the government’s argument, upon reflection we believe that we should affirm the district court in this case for reasons distinct from but not inconsistent with the holding in Iqbal.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The district court said it remained unsettled whether Iqbal overruled Aktieselskabet's pleading analysis and did not resolve the question.

    Douglas v. District of Columbia Housing Authority · D.D.C. · filed

    The D.C. Circuit has yet to settle whether Iqbal extended Twombly and thus overruled Aktieselskabet. See Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (refusing to either reject or accept the government’s argument that Iqbal invalidated Aktieselskabet). And this Court need not settle the issue today.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace