52 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,544 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,461 times 365 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,821 times 138 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (1989) Cited 24,122 times
Holding that official capacity state officer suits for prospective injunctive relief are suits against a "person" under § 1983 even though a "State" is not a "person" under that statute
Pennhurst State School Hosp. v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (1984) Cited 13,435 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that sovereign immunity prohibits federal courts from "instruct[ing] state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law"
Bennett v. Spear
520 U.S. 154 (1997) Cited 3,686 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Final Biological Opinion has "legal consequences," even though the action agency is not legally obligated to accept the opinion's recommendations or conclusions, because the opinion "alter the legal regime to which the action agency is subject"
Hunt v. Cromartie
526 U.S. 541 (1999) Cited 2,876 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court must resolve all reasonable inferences and doubts in the nonmoving party's favor and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
Quern v. Jordan
440 U.S. 332 (1979) Cited 6,563 times
Holding that § 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court
Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n
432 U.S. 333 (1977) Cited 4,434 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that North Carolina's statute banning state grading of apples was discriminatory even though six other states also had no state grading
Raines v. Byrd
521 U.S. 811 (1997) Cited 1,765 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding specifically and only that "individual members of Congress [lack] Article III standing"
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 345,715 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1973 - Transferred
42 U.S.C. § 1973 Cited 1,593 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that no change in voting takes effect until precleared

Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas House of Representatives v. State of Texas et al

52 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that official capacity state officer suits for prospective injunctive relief are suits against a "person" under § 1983 even though a "State" is not a "person" under that statute

Holding that sovereign immunity prohibits federal courts from "instruct[ing] state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law"

Holding that a Final Biological Opinion has "legal consequences," even though the action agency is not legally obligated to accept the opinion's recommendations or conclusions, because the opinion "alter the legal regime to which the action agency is subject"

Holding that the court must resolve all reasonable inferences and doubts in the nonmoving party's favor and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party

Holding that § 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court

Holding that North Carolina's statute banning state grading of apples was discriminatory even though six other states also had no state grading

Holding specifically and only that "individual members of Congress [lack] Article III standing"

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

Holding that no change in voting takes effect until precleared