Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

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' "

Erickson v. Pardus

Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"

Scheuer v. Rhodes

Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity

Davis v. Scherer

Holding that the only relevant inquiry is whether federal law rights are clearly established; it does not matter that the officer simultaneously violates state law rights that are clearly established

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

Holding that an allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff organization "has had to devote significant resources to identify and counteract the defendant's" illegal practices was sufficient to confer standing to the organization in its own right at the pleading stage

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States

Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

Sparling v. Daou

Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

Lazar v. Superior Court

Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Section 1601 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Explaining that TILA's disclosure requirements exist “so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit”

Section 1640 - Civil liability

Holding "any creditor who fails to comply" liable, with creditors defined within § 1602(g) as persons

Section 1635 - Right of rescission as to certain transactions

Granting consumers the right to rescind

Section 1641 - Liability of assignees

Adopting RESPA's meaning of “servicer,” 12 U.S.C. § 2605

Section 1638 - Transactions other than under an open end credit plan

Describing TILA’s disclosure requirements for consumer credit transactions

Section 1461 - Short title

Providing for the establishment of federally chartered savings and loan associations

Section 1654 - Interpretation against party causing uncertainty

Codifying the doctrine of contra proferentem

Section 1642 - Several contracts taken together

Section 226.23 - Right of rescission

Granting extended right to cancel to "consumers" in the event of nondisclosures

Section 226.17 - General disclosure requirements

Requiring that consumer receive a copy of TILA disclosures

Section 226.18 - Content of disclosures

Listing the required disclosures for variable rate

Section 226.15 - Right of rescission

Providing for the extended rescission period “[i]f the required notice and material disclosures are not delivered”

Section 226.28 - Effect on State laws

Providing that, as a general matter, "state law requirements that are inconsistent with the requirements contained in chapter 1 (General Provisions), chapter 2 (Credit Transactions), or chapter 3 (Credit Advertising) of the act and the implementing provisions of this regulation are preempted to the extent of the inconsistency"; adding that " State law is inconsistent if it requires a creditor to make disclosures or take actions that contradict the requirements of the Federal law"