Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Holding for a complaint to survive Rule 12(b), it must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face"

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' "

Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.

Holding that "a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule designed to protect absentees"

Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities Inc.

Holding that to satisfy Rule 9(b), a plaintiff pleading fraud must "specify the statements contended to be fraudulent, identify the speaker, state when and where the statements were made, and explain why the statements were fraudulent. Put simply, Rule 9(b) requires the complaint to set forth the who, what, when, where, and how of the events at issue."

Southland Securities v. Inspire Ins. Solutions

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”

DiLeo v. Ernst Young

Holding accountants owe no duty "to search and sing"

U.S. ex Rel. Grubbs v. Kanneganti

Holding that defendants received adequate notice in a False Claims Act case where the complaint alleged a scheme to submit false claims and enough details that the defendants—who "will be in possession of the most relevant records, such as patients’ charts, doctors’ notes, and internal billing records"—could adequately investigate and defend the claims

Elevator Antitrust v. United Tech

Holding that allegations of conspiratorial activity “in entirely general terms without any specification of any particular activities by any particular defendant ... was nothing more than a list of theoretical possibilities, which one could postulate without knowing any facts whatever”

Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Holding that allegation that "Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys . . . knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it" without naming "the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application" was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the "who" element of an inequitable conduct claim

Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.

Holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate

Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

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

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

Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Section 548 - Fraudulent transfers and obligations

Seeking to avoid constructively fraudulent transfers

Section 24.005 - Transfers Fraudulent As to Present and Future Creditors

Requiring a transferor to act with “actual intent to . . . defraud,” but saying nothing about the transferee's state of mind

Section 24.006 - Transfers Fraudulent As to Present Creditors

Section 24.009 - Defenses, Liability, and Protection of Transferee

Providing that creditors may recover "the value of the asset transferred," which "must be for an amount equal to the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to adjustment as the equities may require"