§Why CasetextPricing

Smith v. Philadelphia Inquirer, et al.

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION SETTING FORTH THE REASONS WHY DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

20 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 267,100 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 280,127 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

  3. Hishon v. King Spalding

    467 U.S. 69 (1984)   Cited 12,563 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the right of expression does not permit selecting law firm partners in violation of Title VII

  4. Skinner v. Switzer

    562 U.S. 521 (2011)   Cited 3,016 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rooker-Feldman does not stop a prisoner's § 1983 challenge to a state statute

  5. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 59,340 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

  6. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano

    563 U.S. 2011 (2011)   Cited 1,443 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs had adequately pled a Rule 10b–5 claim—where defendant had disputed the sufficiency of the allegations with respect to the elements of scienter and materiality—by alleging that defendant had forestalled a stock price drop by making affirmative statements confirming the market's impression that defendant's leading product was safe, despite defendant's awareness of evidence suggesting a significant risk that the nasal spray led to loss of sense of smell; when the risk was finally (belatedly) disclosed, the stock price plummeted

  7. Morse v. Lower Merion School District

    132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 6,361 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "the notion of deliberate indifference contemplates a danger that must at least be foreseeable," defendant cannot be said to have ignored a foreseeable risk or danger if plaintiff has not shown the existence of such a risk

  8. Mayer v. Belichick

    605 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 2,536 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding we must only consider documents if complainant's claims are based upon these documents

  9. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps

    475 U.S. 767 (1986)   Cited 699 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where plaintiff is a private figure and newspaper articles are a matter of public concern, there is a "constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages"

  10. City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Comp

    147 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 1998)   Cited 910 times
    Holding action that did not lessen competition in a "marketplace" was not antitrust injury

  11. Section 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis

    28 U.S.C. § 1915   Cited 305,367 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, after a plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted"

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 164,069 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1985   Cited 20,444 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Concerning conspiracies to obstruct justice or intimidate a party, witness, or juror

  14. Section 1986 - Action for neglect to prevent

    42 U.S.C. § 1986   Cited 5,314 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Setting a 1-year statute of limitations