36 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 255,203 times   280 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
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,949 times   367 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' "
  3. Neitzke v. Williams

    490 U.S. 319 (1989)   Cited 56,198 times
    Holding that "an in forma pauperis pro se complaint may only be dismissed as frivolous ... when the petitioner cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in law or in fact"
  4. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services

    436 U.S. 658 (1978)   Cited 67,600 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "local government ... are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  5. Board of Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown

    520 U.S. 397 (1997)   Cited 12,285 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "high degree of predictability may also support an inference of causation—that the municipality's indifference led directly to the very consequence that was so predictable"
  6. Canton v. Harris

    489 U.S. 378 (1989)   Cited 16,427 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the city could be held liable for failing to train police officers in determining whether detainees needed medical care because of the likelihood that, absent proper training, the officers would default on their constitutional obligations
  7. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

    561 U.S. 247 (2010)   Cited 1,470 times   177 Legal Analyses
    Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction
  8. Harris v. Mills

    572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 6,622 times
    Holding that notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of constitutionally protected interest coupled with Article 78 post-deprivation remedy satisfied due process
  9. Castle Rock v. Gonzales

    545 U.S. 748 (2005)   Cited 1,379 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a benefit is not a protected interest if government officials have discretion to grant or deny it
  10. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.

    282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 6,289 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding extrinsic materials were not "integral" to the complaint because the complaint "d[id] not refer to the[m]" and "plaintiffs apparently did not rely on them in drafting it"
  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 490,314 times   695 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
  12. 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 348,503 times   930 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  13. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 157,606 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  14. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,110 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
  15. Section 1961 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 14,992 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include
  16. Section 145.00 - Criminal mischief in the fourth degree

    N.Y. Penal Law § 145.00   Cited 463 times

    A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the fourth degree when, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such right, he or she: 1. Intentionally damages property of another person; or 2. Intentionally participates in the destruction of an abandoned building as defined in section one thousand nine hundred seventy-one-a of the real property actions and proceedings law; or 3. Recklessly damages property of another person in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty