§Why CasetextPricing

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension Fund v. International Game Technology et al

MEMORANDUM

47 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,121 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.

    316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,886 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court abused its discretion because "[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment"

  3. In re Gilead Sciences

    536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 2,902 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court need not accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory"

  4. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.

    565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 2,079 times   1 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"

  5. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,285 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

  6. Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp.

    108 F.3d 246 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 959 times
    Setting forth elements of a FHA claim

  7. Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney

    416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 693 times
    Finding that learning a company had substantially less cash than it had been led to believe material

  8. IN RE STAC ELECTRONICS SECURITIES LITIGATION

    89 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 801 times
    Holding securities section 11 claims sounding in fraud are subject to Rule 9(b) particularity requirements

  9. Cutera Securities Litigation v. Conners

    610 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 474 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "statements fall outside the safe harbor if the plaintiff can allege facts that would create a strong inference that the defendants made the [statements] at issue with ‘actual knowledge ... that the statement was false or misleading’ "

  10. Provenz v. Miller

    102 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 699 times
    Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file surreply because the court did not consider new evidence included in reply brief

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,918 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  12. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,502 times   165 Legal Analyses
    Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

  13. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,464 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  14. Section 78u-5 - Application of safe harbor for forward-looking statements

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-5   Cited 1,258 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Noting that under the statutory safe harbor, a defendant may avoid liability for any forward-looking statement that is false or misleading if the statement is "identified as a forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement"