44 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,477 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 276,716 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
Scott v. Harris
550 U.S. 372 (2007) Cited 12,620 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that if opposing parties tell two different versions of the facts, and one is blatantly contradicted by the record, a court should not adopt that version of the facts in ruling on a motion for summary judgment
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.
457 U.S. 922 (1982) Cited 6,917 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an individual who uses a state replevin, garnishment, or attachment statute later declared to be unconstitutional acts under color of state law for purposes of § 1983
Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n
531 U.S. 288 (2001) Cited 1,850 times
Holding a school athletic association was a state actor because it was pervasively entwined with public officials
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 6,453 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"
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn
457 U.S. 830 (1982) Cited 2,482 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "receipt of public funds does not make [a private school's] discharge decisions acts of the State"
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.
419 U.S. 345 (1974) Cited 3,044 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the termination of electrical services by a privately owned utility was action by a private actor and not the state, even though the utility company was subject to extensive state regulation
Cornelius v. Naacp Legal Defense Ed. Fund
473 U.S. 788 (1985) Cited 1,590 times
Holding that a charitable fundraising drive conducted in a federal workplace was a nonpublic forum
Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n
483 U.S. 825 (1987) Cited 953 times 76 Legal Analyses
Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 501,343 times 705 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
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 357,835 times 950 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Rodriguez et al v. Winski et al

44 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 if opposing parties tell two different versions of the facts, and one is blatantly contradicted by the record, a court should not adopt that version of the facts in ruling on a motion for summary judgment

Holding that an individual who uses a state replevin, garnishment, or attachment statute later declared to be unconstitutional acts under color of state law for purposes of § 1983

Holding a school athletic association was a state actor because it was pervasively entwined with public officials

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"

Holding that "receipt of public funds does not make [a private school's] discharge decisions acts of the State"

Holding that the termination of electrical services by a privately owned utility was action by a private actor and not the state, even though the utility company was subject to extensive state regulation

Holding that a charitable fundraising drive conducted in a federal workplace was a nonpublic forum

Holding that for a development exaction to be constitutional, there must be an "essential nexus" between the valid state interest and the permit condition

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

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