51 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,409 times   364 Legal Analyses
    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' "
  2. Ernst Ernst v. Hochfelder

    425 U.S. 185 (1976)   Cited 3,483 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 9(f) “contains a state-of-mind condition requiring something more than negligence”
  3. In re Katrina Canal

    495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 4,526 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that flood exclusion provisions in State Farm policy covered damage caused by flooding due to breached levees
  4. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

    304 U.S. 64 (1938)   Cited 20,353 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues
  5. O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit Insurance

    512 U.S. 79 (1994)   Cited 889 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal statutory scheme detailing what claims could be made against the FDIC when it is acting as receiver necessarily excluded claims not mentioned in the statute
  6. Chiarella v. United States

    445 U.S. 222 (1980)   Cited 976 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that duty to disclose under Rule 10b-5 arises from fiduciary relationship
  7. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green

    430 U.S. 462 (1977)   Cited 1,063 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Securities Exchange Act is limited in scope to its textual provisions and does not conflict with state law regarding corporate misconduct, particularly corporate mismanagement
  8. United States v. O'Hagan

    521 U.S. 642 (1997)   Cited 488 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 14(e), the SEC may prohibit "acts not themselves fraudulent under the common law or § 10(b), if the prohibition is reasonably designed to prevent acts and practices that are fraudulent" (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)
  9. Benchmark Electronics v. J.M. Huber Corp.

    343 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2003)   Cited 828 times
    Holding that the district court plainly erred in treating the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment without allowing discovery, noting that the plaintiff was “deprived of a full and fair opportunity to defend against summary judgment”
  10. Williams v. WMX Technologies, Inc.

    112 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,026 times
    Holding Rule 9(b) requires a plaintiff plead the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud
  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,822 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"
  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 21,891 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
  13. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,486 times   163 Legal Analyses
    Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities
  14. Section 240.10b5-2 - Duties of trust or confidence in misappropriation insider trading cases

    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b5-2   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Preliminary Note to § 240.10b 5-2: This section provides a non-exclusive definition of circumstances in which a person has a duty of trust or confidence for purposes of the "misappropriation" theory of insider trading under Section 10(b) of the Act and Rule 10b-5. The law of insider trading is otherwise defined by judicial opinions construing Rule 10b-5, and Rule 10b5-2 does not modify the scope of insider trading law in any other respect. (a)Scope of Rule. This section shall apply to any violation