Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

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' "

Arbaugh v. Y H Corp.

Holding that Title VII's numerosity requirement is nonjurisdictional even though it serves the important policy goal of “spar[ing] very small businesses from Title VII liability”

Conley v. Gibson

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"

Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores

Holding that only purchasers and sellers of a security have a private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b–5

White v. Lee

Holding that, because it “is based on and implements the First Amendment right to petition,” the Noerr–Pennington doctrine “applies equally in all contexts”

Rapanos v. U.S.

Holding that "[t]he use of the definite article and the plural number ('waters')" made clear that § 1362 is limited to "fixed bodies of water," such as "streams, ... oceans, rivers, lakes," and does not extend to "ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows"

Evans v. B.F. Perkins Company

Holding that when a defendant challenges subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment

Adams v. Bain

Holding that "where the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute, . . . the entire factual dispute is appropriately resolved only by a proceeding on the merits" and it is inappropriate to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

Limestone v. Village

Holding that the continuing violation doctrine simply “allow suit to be delayed until a series of wrongful acts blossoms into an injury on which suit can be brought”

Williams v. U.S.

Holding that there is no subject-matter jurisdiction when the discretionary function exception applies

Section 1331 - Federal question

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."

Section 1961 - Definitions

Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

Section 1251 - Congressional declaration of goals and policy

Designating the Administrator of the EPA to "administer this chapter"

Section 1311 - Effluent limitations

Imposing general prohibition on "the discharge of any pollutant by any person"

Section 1362 - Definitions

Defining “pollutant” to include “rock”

Section 1321 - Oil and hazardous substance liability

Granting the President authority to "remove or arrange for the removal of a discharge, and mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a discharge, at any time"

Section 9603 - Notification requirements respecting released substances

Requiring disclosure

Section 110.3 - Discharge of oil in such quantities as "may be harmful" pursuant to section 311(b)(4) of the Act