74 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 266,796 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 279,848 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. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,547 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
  4. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,631 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
  5. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 12,233 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
  6. United States v. Bestfoods

    524 U.S. 51 (1998)   Cited 1,446 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ownership and control is insufficient to demonstrate an alter-ego relationship
  7. ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.

    493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 4,018 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "a plaintiff must show . . . a primary violation by the controlled person" in order to "establish a prima facie case of control[-]person liability," a plaintiff who "fails to allege any primary violation . . . cannot establish control[-]person liability"
  8. Cuoco v. Moritsugu

    222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 4,959 times
    Holding that a pro se plaintiff should be "grant[ed] leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated" but leave to amend may be properly denied as "futile"
  9. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.

    565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 2,220 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that warnings "d[id] not qualify as meaningful cautionary language" because they "did not disclose that defendants knew from past experience that the [risks] posed an imminent threat of business and financial ruin and that some damage from these risks had already materialized"
  10. Roth v. Jennings

    489 F.3d 499 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 1,439 times
    Holding that dismissal of a Section 16 suit for disgorgement of short-swing profits was unjustified when there were allegations that a loan had been made to a borrower in furtherance of an agreement between the lender and the borrower "to work together to effect a change of control or similar transaction involving [the company whose shares were purchased with the borrowed money]"
  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,896 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,128 times   335 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
  13. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,734 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party
  14. Section 78n - Proxies

    15 U.S.C. § 78n   Cited 1,653 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Incorporating § 78m(d) by reference
  15. Section 2702 - Elements of liability

    33 U.S.C. § 2702   Cited 201 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Excluding certain oil spills from OPA liability
  16. Section 240.14a-9 - False or misleading statements

    17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9   Cited 616 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a proxy statement shall not "contain any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading"
  17. Section 107.267 - Special examination in lieu of drydocking for self-elevating units

    46 C.F.R. § 107.267

    (a) A self-elevating unit must be specially examined in accordance with a plan- (1) Submitted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section; and (2) Approved by the Commandant (CG-CVC). (b) To meet the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of the unit must submit a plan to the Commandant (CG-CVC) that provides for- (1) Examination of the unit's hull while it is in the elevated position; and (2) Examination of the supporting mat, spud cans, or footings while the unit