42 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 264,376 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 277,581 times   369 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
  3. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept

    901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 16,429 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a cognizable gender discrimination claim could be brought by a female domestic violence victim where the victim alleged police denied protection and made misogynistic comments including that "he did not blame [the victim's] husband for hitting her, because of the way she was 'carrying on'"
  4. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. New Orleans

    491 U.S. 350 (1989)   Cited 2,057 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Burford abstention is not appropriate where the plaintiff's claim "does not involve a state-law claim," and rejecting the Fifth Circuit's declaration that "`the absence of a state law claim [is] not fatal'" to the application of Burford abstention
  5. Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

    429 U.S. 477 (1977)   Cited 2,090 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws
  6. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States

    370 U.S. 294 (1962)   Cited 1,843 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding judgment final and appealable where district court passed on every prayer for relief in the complaint and ordered full divestiture of stock, although court had not yet approved a divestiture plan
  7. Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

    499 U.S. 365 (1991)   Cited 554 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no "conspiracy" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine
  8. Burford v. Sun Oil Co.

    319 U.S. 315 (1943)   Cited 2,432 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal court may abstain from exercising its equity jurisdiction where doing so would "be prejudicial to the public interest" or would "so clearly involve basic problems of [State] policy" (quoting United States ex rel. Greathouse v. Dern , 289 U.S. 352, 360, 53 S.Ct. 614, 77 L.Ed. 1250 (1933) )
  9. Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire

    471 U.S. 34 (1985)   Cited 388 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that municipal entities, though not sovereign, may avail themselves of the immunity if their actions spring from governing state authority
  10. Hoover v. Ronwin

    466 U.S. 558 (1984)   Cited 350 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state-action immunity can be decided on a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss
  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 358,800 times   954 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 15 - Suits by persons injured

    15 U.S.C. § 15   Cited 5,744 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."
  13. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 3,215 times   76 Legal Analyses
    Forbidding every "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States"
  14. Section 1060 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1060   Cited 1,210 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another to ask for such a declaration, either alone or with other relief
  15. Section 34 - Definitions applicable to sections 34 to 36

    15 U.S.C. § 34   Cited 124 times
    Defining "local government" to include various entities "established by State law in one or more States"
  16. Section 16 - "Shall" and "may"

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 16   Cited 15 times
    In section 16's definitions of "shall" as mandatory and "may" as permissive, we find support for construing section 1335 as imposing a mandatory duty on the Department to adopt regulations.
  17. Section 1797.201 - Written agreement with city or fire district regarding provision of prehospital emergency medical services

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 1797.201   Cited 8 times
    Preserving the pre-1980 status quo by allowing cities to continue "providing [emergency medical] services" until reaching an agreement with the county
  18. Section 1797.200 - County emergency medical services program

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 1797.200   Cited 6 times

    Each county may develop an emergency medical services program. Each county developing such a program shall designate a local EMS agency which shall be the county health department, an agency established and operated by the county, an entity with which the county contracts for the purposes of local emergency medical services administration, or a joint powers agency created for the administration of emergency medical services by agreement between counties or cities and counties pursuant to the provisions

  19. Section 1797.224 - Exclusive operating area

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 1797.224   Cited 6 times

    A local EMS agency may create one or more exclusive operating areas in the development of a local plan, if a competitive process is utilized to select the provider or providers of the services pursuant to the plan. No competitive process is required if the local EMS agency develops or implements a local plan that continues the use of existing providers operating within a local EMS area in the manner and scope in which the services have been provided without interruption since January 1, 1981. A local

  20. Section 1797.6 - State policy; legislative intent

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 1797.6   Cited 6 times
    Providing "for state action immunity under federal antitrust laws for activities undertaken by local governmental entities in carrying out their prescribed functions"