§Why CasetextPricing

Rudolph v. UT Starcom et al

Memorandum in Opposition to 77 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

36 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,086 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,543 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”

  3. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors

    266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 5,048 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss

  4. Parks School of Business, Inc. v. Symington

    51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 2,529 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a corporation had standing to sue under § 1981 alleging that defendants discriminated against it because it contracts with racial minorities

  5. Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite

    396 U.S. 375 (1970)   Cited 1,401 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that causation of damages by materially misleading proxy misstatement could be established by showing that proxy solicitation was an "essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction"

  6. 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

  7. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,283 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

  8. Pareto v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

    139 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,174 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDIC accedes to the rights of the failed bank's shareholders under § 1821(d)

  9. Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp.

    108 F.3d 246 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 957 times
    Setting forth elements of a FHA claim

  10. Provenz v. Miller

    102 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 696 times
    Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file surreply because the court did not consider new evidence included in reply brief