39 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 267,813 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 280,791 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
578 U.S. 330 (2016) Cited 8,255 times 444 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statutory violation, without more, did not give rise to Article III standing
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 29,335 times 144 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"
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (1994) Cited 20,346 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that absent a reservation of jurisdiction in the stipulated dismissal order, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider enforcement of a settlement agreement
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (1996) Cited 14,750 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts
Papasan v. Allain
478 U.S. 265 (1986) Cited 17,495 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"
Summers v. Earth Island Inst.
555 U.S. 488 (2009) Cited 3,185 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that supplementation of the district court record to receive affidavits from the organization's members was not permitted "in the circumstances here: after the trial is over, judgment has been entered, and a notice of appeal has been filed"
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona
520 U.S. 43 (1997) Cited 2,628 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff's challenge to a state law affecting the performance of her job duties was mooted when she left state employment
Raines v. Byrd
521 U.S. 811 (1997) Cited 1,865 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 362,607 times 962 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,455 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 2 - Judicial Power and Jurisdiction
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 Cited 11,196 times 4 Legal Analyses
Granting federal courts power only to resolve “cases” and “controversies”
Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
47 U.S.C. § 227 Cited 5,820 times 744 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals
Section 51-12-5.1 - Punitive damages
Ga. Code § 51-12-5.1 Cited 797 times 4 Legal Analyses
Allowing punitive damages under Georgia state law where "the defendant's actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences"
Section 10-1-391 - Purpose and construction of part
Ga. Code § 10-1-391 Cited 58 times
Describing purpose of FBPA
Section 10-1-401 - Limitation of actions; right to set off damages or penalties not limited
Ga. Code § 10-1-401 Cited 27 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that action for deceptive acts in the conduct of consumer transactions must be brought within “two years after the person bringing the action knew or should have known of the occurrence of the alleged violation”

Roberts et al v. Ditech Financial, Llc et al

39 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that a statutory violation, without more, did not give rise to Article III standing

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 absent a reservation of jurisdiction in the stipulated dismissal order, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider enforcement of a settlement agreement

Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts

Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"

Holding that supplementation of the district court record to receive affidavits from the organization's members was not permitted "in the circumstances here: after the trial is over, judgment has been entered, and a notice of appeal has been filed"

Holding that the plaintiff's challenge to a state law affecting the performance of her job duties was mooted when she left state employment

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 "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Granting federal courts power only to resolve “cases” and “controversies”

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

Allowing punitive damages under Georgia state law where "the defendant's actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences"

Describing purpose of FBPA

Stating that action for deceptive acts in the conduct of consumer transactions must be brought within “two years after the person bringing the action knew or should have known of the occurrence of the alleged violation”