19 Cited authorities

Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights
551 U.S. 308 (2007) Cited 9,176 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
In re Katrina Canal
495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 4,588 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that flood exclusion provisions in State Farm policy covered damage caused by flooding due to breached levees
Brown v. General Services Administration
425 U.S. 820 (1976) Cited 2,247 times
Holding that federal employee who missed deadline for filing Title VII claim could not bring suit based on alleged discriminatory conduct under Declaratory Judgment Act
Baker v. Putnal
75 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 2,558 times
Holding that disputed issues of fact precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds where officer asserted that victim "was holding a semi-automatic pistol, loaded the pistol with ammunition, and leveled it at him from the passenger's side of the vehicle," but three witnesses testified that victim "took no threatening action toward" the officer, and officer and witnesses’ accounts conflicted whether the officer had issued any orders to the victim before shooting and disputed whether the victim "was even holding the pistol or pointing it at" the officer
Pacheco v. Mineta
448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) Cited 942 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding disparate impact investigation could not reasonably grow from charge alleging individualized disparate treatment without identifying neutral employment policy
Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc.
394 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2004) Cited 897 times
Holding that "[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim"
Ramsey v. Henderson
286 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 949 times
Holding that “conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy” the nonmovant's burden in a motion for summary judgment
Kane Enterprises v. MacGregor
322 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2003) Cited 203 times
Holding that an equitable lien could not be asserted against estate property in any court outside of the court in which the bankruptcy case was pending because the court in which bankruptcy case was pending had "exclusive jurisdiction over property of the estate"
Maloney Gaming Mgmt. v. Parish
456 F. App'x 336 (5th Cir. 2011) Cited 140 times
Noting that courts considering a 12(b) motion "may consider documents outside the complaint when they are: attached to the motion; referenced in the complaint; and central to the plaintiff's claims"
Randel v. U.S. Dept. of Navy
157 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 139 times
Holding that a “discrimination claim is separate and distinct from reprisal claim, and accordingly [must be exhausted] before seeking review in federal court.”
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 347,669 times 925 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,948 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"
Section 1614.105 - Pre-complaint processing
29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 Cited 2,626 times 13 Legal Analyses
Requiring complainant initially to notify agency and make effort to resolve matter informally
Section 1614.101 - General policy
29 C.F.R. § 1614.101 Cited 172 times
Providing that "[n]o person shall be subject to retaliation for opposing any practice made unlawful by title VII of the Civil Rights Act [or] the Age Discrimination in Employment Act . . . or for participating in any stage of administrative or judicial proceedings under those statutes"

Chandra v. Bowhead Science & Technology Llc et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

Holding that flood exclusion provisions in State Farm policy covered damage caused by flooding due to breached levees

Holding that federal employee who missed deadline for filing Title VII claim could not bring suit based on alleged discriminatory conduct under Declaratory Judgment Act

Holding disparate impact investigation could not reasonably grow from charge alleging individualized disparate treatment without identifying neutral employment policy

Holding that "[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim"

Holding that “conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy” the nonmovant's burden in a motion for summary judgment

Holding that an equitable lien could not be asserted against estate property in any court outside of the court in which the bankruptcy case was pending because the court in which bankruptcy case was pending had "exclusive jurisdiction over property of the estate"

Noting that courts considering a 12(b) motion "may consider documents outside the complaint when they are: attached to the motion; referenced in the complaint; and central to the plaintiff's claims"

Holding that a “discrimination claim is separate and distinct from reprisal claim, and accordingly [must be exhausted] before seeking review in federal court.”

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Requiring complainant initially to notify agency and make effort to resolve matter informally

Providing that "[n]o person shall be subject to retaliation for opposing any practice made unlawful by title VII of the Civil Rights Act [or] the Age Discrimination in Employment Act . . . or for participating in any stage of administrative or judicial proceedings under those statutes"