Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 273,590 times 368 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights
551 U.S. 308 (2007) Cited 9,348 times 105 Legal AnalysesHolding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,593 times 67 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
552 U.S. 148 (2008) Cited 1,199 times 80 Legal AnalysesHolding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"
Miller v. Currie
50 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 1995) Cited 2,656 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "a general objection to a magistrate's report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection is filed. The objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious."
Novak v. Kasaks
216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 1,611 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding section 78u-4(b) does not literally require pleading of all facts, so long as facts pleaded provide adequate basis for believing statements were false
La Grasta v. First Union Securities, Inc.
358 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,380 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds is "appropriate only if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim is time-barred"
Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc.
187 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,301 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that “a court, when considering a motion to dismiss in a securities fraud case, may take judicial notice . . . of relevant public documents required to be filed with the SEC”
Garfield v. NDC Health Corp.
466 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2006) Cited 683 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a dismissal can be final even before leave to amend expires
Ziemba v. Cascade Intern., Inc.
256 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001) Cited 759 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that Rule 9(b) satisfied if "complaint sets forth precisely what statements were made in what documents or oral representations or what omissions were made, and the time and place of each statement and the person responsible for making it, . . . the content of such statements and the manner in which they misled plaintiffs, and what defendants obtained as a consequence of the fraud"
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal AnalysesHolding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 39,551 times 328 Legal AnalysesRequiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,592 times 52 Legal AnalysesGranting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party
Section 78u - Investigations and actions
15 U.S.C. § 78u Cited 2,326 times 86 Legal AnalysesGranting the SEC the power to seek civil penalties for violations of the Exchange Act
Section 78u-5 - Application of safe harbor for forward-looking statements
15 U.S.C. § 78u-5 Cited 1,276 times 22 Legal AnalysesListing as an exclusion from the safe harbor "forward-looking statement in connection with a going private transaction"