31 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 277,112 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
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
457 U.S. 800 (1982) Cited 32,076 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"
Scheuer v. Rhodes
416 U.S. 232 (1974) Cited 22,596 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity
Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders
564 U.S. 135 (2011) Cited 583 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a mutual fund adviser may not be found liable for a mutual fund's violation of SEC Rule 10b–5, in part because of “the narrow scope that [courts] must give the implied private right of action”
In re Glenfed, Inc. Securities Litigation
42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 1,724 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs may not "merely proclaim in the most conclusory of fashion that the defendants made false statements."
Dias v. City & County of Denver
567 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2009) Cited 677 times
Holding plaintiffs lacked standing where they did not allege a credible threat of future prosecution
S.E. C. v. Capital Gains Bureau
375 U.S. 180 (1963) Cited 668 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that an investment adviser who purchases a security for his own account and then recommends the same security to his client without disclosing that ownership violates the antifraud provision of the Act and breaches his fiduciary duty
Oran v. Stafford
226 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2000) Cited 648 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts can take judicial notice of authenticated versions of publicly available documents filed with a regulatory agency
Krim v. BancTexas Grp., Inc.
989 F.2d 1435 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 522 times
Holding that certain omitted information was not material, but based on the ground that the substance of the information was adequately set forth in the prospectus, not simply because the information was not firm-specific or was publicly available
Grossman v. Novell, Inc.
120 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 1997) Cited 375 times
Holding that a company's general claims that it offered "a compelling set of opportunities" and had "experienced substantial success" were "soft, puffing statements, incapable of objective verification" for purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,307 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 93,886 times 92 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 39,914 times 332 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Rule 52 - Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 Cited 26,764 times 103 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that a "reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility"

Securities And Exchange Commission v. Lester et al

31 Cited authorities

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 public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"

Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity

Holding that a mutual fund adviser may not be found liable for a mutual fund's violation of SEC Rule 10b–5, in part because of “the narrow scope that [courts] must give the implied private right of action”

Holding that plaintiffs may not "merely proclaim in the most conclusory of fashion that the defendants made false statements."

Holding plaintiffs lacked standing where they did not allege a credible threat of future prosecution

Holding that an investment adviser who purchases a security for his own account and then recommends the same security to his client without disclosing that ownership violates the antifraud provision of the Act and breaches his fiduciary duty

Holding that courts can take judicial notice of authenticated versions of publicly available documents filed with a regulatory agency

Holding that certain omitted information was not material, but based on the ground that the substance of the information was adequately set forth in the prospectus, not simply because the information was not firm-specific or was publicly available

Holding that a company's general claims that it offered "a compelling set of opportunities" and had "experienced substantial success" were "soft, puffing statements, incapable of objective verification" for purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)

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

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Recognizing that a "reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility"