Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 267,813 times 281 Legal AnalysesHolding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 280,791 times 369 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
Castellano v. Young Rubicam, Inc.
257 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 245 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that to sustain a common law cause of action in the context of securities fraud would be inconsistent with the Attorney–General's exclusive enforcement powers under the Martin Act
CPC International Inc. v. McKesson
70 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 318 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that financial projections were "material existing fact, sufficient to support a fraud action"
Kerusa Co. v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd.
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2482 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 151 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Martin Act “authorizes the Attorney General to investigate and enjoin fraudulent practices in the marketing of stocks, bonds and other securities within or from New York State”
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
651 F. Supp. 2d 155 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 109 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a defendant's repeated representations did not evidence an intent to permit a third party to enforce a contract where the contract itself did not evidence such intent
Hamlet on Olde Oyster Bay Home Owners Ass'n v. Holiday Organization, Inc.
65 A.D.3d 1284 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 41 timesIn Hamlet on Olde Oyster Bay Home Owners Assn., Inc. v Holiday Org., Inc. (65 AD3d 1284), the Second Department upheld the dismissal of causes of action alleging fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation against the sponsor's parent organizations that were based on unrealistic budget projections included in the offering plan, as required by the Martin Act and the Attorney General's implementing regulations.
Caboara v. Babylon Cove
54 A.D.3d 79 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 35 timesHolding that fraud and breach of contract claims are not preempted
Whitehall Tenants Corp. v. Estate of Olnick
213 A.D.2d 200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995) Cited 32 timesMarch 9, 1995 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.). Plaintiff cooperative's attempt to sue representatively on behalf of its resident shareholders, claiming that they were defrauded by defendant sponsor, was properly rejected. While CPC Intl. v. McKesson Corp. ( 70 N.Y.2d 268), holding that there is no private right of action under the Martin Act, does not foreclose a cause of action for common-law fraud (see, Break-waters Townhomes Assn. v. Breakwaters of Buffalo, 207
Kramer v. Real Estate
44 A.D.3d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 17 timesIn Kramer, the appellate court noted that, because the Martin Act was enacted to protect the public from fraudulent practices, to construe the Act as having "abolished the right of purchasers of condominium and cooperative interests... to sue sellers for common-law fraud is to give the Martin Act a construction that is antithetical to its remedial purpose."
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 362,607 times 962 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,455 times 197 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 40,207 times 337 Legal AnalysesRequiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 402 Cited 7,010 times 12 Legal AnalysesStating that relevant evidence is generally admissible at trial