Holding that collective allegations do not satisfy a plaintiff's "burden . . . to provide fair notice of the grounds for the claims made against each of the defendants"
Holding that it was proper for the district court to consider, on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), exhibits attached to the Complaint, materials referenced in the Complaint, and all materials in the state court's file
Noting that, in extending absolute immunity to those within administrative agencies who perform functions similar to judges and prosecutors, the Supreme Court has recognized that administrative proceedings are usually adversarial in nature and provide many of the same features and safeguards that are provided in court.
Holding a private defendant's creation of an advisory board of mostly state actors in order to increase illegal seizures for the defendant's financial gain "clearly establishes that [the defendant] acted in concert with state officials"
Holding that the Comprehensive Law Suit Reform Act of 2009, including the 2009 version of section 2004, violates the "single subject rule" and is unconstitutional
Declaring 63 O.S.Supp.2003 § 1-1708.1E —which required plaintiffs in medical malpractice tort suits to consult with, and to obtain a written opinion from, a qualified expert in support of their claim prior to filing their lawsuits—was an unconstitutional special law and monetary barrier to court access
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 100,267 times 139 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Cited 64,402 times 81 Legal Analyses
Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"