§Why CasetextPricing

Arpaio, et al. v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et al.

MOTION to Dismiss Case

35 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 263,589 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 276,823 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. Mireles v. Waco

    502 U.S. 9 (1991)   Cited 7,489 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that judges retain their immunity from suit when they are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly

  4. Stump v. Sparkman

    435 U.S. 349 (1978)   Cited 8,342 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a judge "will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction"

  5. Forrester v. White

    484 U.S. 219 (1988)   Cited 3,113 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that judges are not absolutely immune for administrative acts

  6. Pierson v. Ray

    386 U.S. 547 (1967)   Cited 5,459 times
    Holding that a good faith defense applies if the defendant held a subjective belief that was objectively reasonable that he was acting legally

  7. Swartz v. KPMG LLP

    476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,933 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”

  8. Cleavinger v. Saxner

    474 U.S. 193 (1985)   Cited 1,375 times
    Holding that prison disciplinary hearing committee members are entitled to qualified immunity

  9. Antoine v. Byers Anderson, Inc.

    508 U.S. 429 (1993)   Cited 749 times
    Holding that quasi-judicial immunity extends only to officials who perform discretionary functions

  10. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc.

    798 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 2,391 times
    Holding that state agency determination in unemployment hearing did not preclude federal employment discrimination claim because plaintiff did not have adequate opportunity to present discrimination claim before agency

  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 357,946 times   950 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,144 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 1962 - Prohibited activities

    18 U.S.C. § 1962   Cited 16,179 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Specifying prohibited activities

  14. Section 1961 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 15,157 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

  15. Section 12-123 - Jurisdiction and powers

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-123   Cited 52 times

    A. The superior court shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution, and concurrent jurisdiction with justices of the peace of misdemeanors where the penalty does not exceed a fine of two thousand five hundred dollars or imprisonment for six months. B. The court, and the judges thereof, shall have all powers and may issue all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 12-123

  16. Rule 20 - Judgment of Acquittal or Unproven Aggravator

    Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20   Cited 789 times

    (a)Before Verdict. (1)Acquittal. After the close of evidence on either side, and on motion or on its own, the court must enter a judgment of acquittal on any offense charged in an indictment, information, or complaint if there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction. (2)Aggravation. After the close of evidence on either side in an aggravation phase, and on motion or on its own, the court must enter a judgment that an aggravating circumstance or other sentence enhancement was not proven

  17. Rule 10.1 - Change of Judge for Cause

    Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.1   Cited 54 times

    (a)Grounds. A party is entitled to a change of judge if the party shows that the assigned judge's interest or prejudice would prevent a fair and impartial hearing or trial. (b)Procedure. (1)Motion, Timing, and Form. A party seeking a change of judge for cause must file a motion no later than 10 days after discovering that grounds exist, but may not file a motion after a hearing or trial begins. The motion must state specific grounds for the change of judge and be supported by an affidavit. Allegations