§Why CasetextPricing

Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension Fund v. Walgreen Co. et al

MEMORANDUM

34 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,995 times   364 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' "

  2. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,099 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  3. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,545 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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”

  4. Ernst Ernst v. Hochfelder

    425 U.S. 185 (1976)   Cited 3,484 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 9(f) “contains a state-of-mind condition requiring something more than negligence”

  5. Novak v. Kasaks

    216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,596 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  6. Southland Securities v. Inspire Ins. Solutions

    365 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,144 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when determining whether a statement made by a corporation was made with scienter it is “appropriate to look to the state of mind of the individual corporate official or officials who make or issue the statement ... rather than generally to the collective knowledge of all the corporation's officers and employees”

  7. Cooper v. Pickett

    122 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,236 times
    Holding that where complaint asserting claims of improper revenue recognition identified some of the defrauded customers, the type of conduct, the general time frame, and why the conduct was fraudulent, it was "not fatal to the complaint that it [did] not describe in detail a single specific transaction . . . by customer, amount, and precise method"

  8. Warshaw v. Xoma Corp.

    74 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 676 times
    Holding that a company's statements regarding the safety of its new products were actionable where the reassuring statements "were designed to prevent shareholder flight in the aftermath of a damaging report regarding the possible hazards of [the product]"

  9. In re Syntex Corp. Securities Litigation

    95 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 541 times
    Holding that general statements of optimism made in an unstable market were “inactionable forecasts”

  10. Doherty v. City of Chicago

    75 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 536 times
    Holding that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at state law because decisions of the zoning boards were subject to judicial review in Illinois state courts

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 155,819 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,496 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 7,451 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 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices

    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5   Cited 9,191 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"