§Why CasetextPricing

SIBLEY v. OBAMA et al

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

17 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 28,570 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  2. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 12,061 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

  3. Rhodes v. Robinson

    380 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 5,193 times
    Holding that for a retaliation claim to be viable, a prisoner must allege, inter alia, that a state actor took adverse action against him because of his protected conduct

  4. Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood

    441 U.S. 91 (1979)   Cited 1,522 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a municipality suffered an injury from a reduction in its property tax base, even though nothing required the municipality to impose property taxes

  5. White v. Lee

    227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 2,136 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because it “is based on and implements the First Amendment right to petition,” the Noerr–Pennington doctrine “applies equally in all contexts”

  6. Gill v. Pidlypchak

    389 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 763 times
    Holding that the plaintiff had satisfied the adverse action element of a retaliation claim by alleging "the filing of false misbehavior reports against" him

  7. Spear v. Town of West Hartford

    954 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 412 times
    Holding that plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that "conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right [can] be fairly attributable to the State."

  8. Teva v. Novartis

    482 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 219 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign litigation is not dispositive of the jurisdiction analysis, but is one factor to be considered

  9. Zherka v. Amicone

    634 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 2011)   Cited 167 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations pled in a "most cursory fashion . . . are insufficient to establish facial plausibility under the standard set by" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556

  10. Laroque v. Holder

    650 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that a plaintiff not directly subject to an enforcement proceeding could bring a constitutional challenge under Free Enterprise Fund

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Section 16-3501 - Persons against whom issued; civil action

    D.C. Code § 16-3501   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action. D.C. Code § 16-3501 Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358