24 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 260,142 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 273,590 times   368 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. Beddall v. State Street Bank and Trust Company

    137 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 710 times
    Holding that the district court properly considered an agreement on a Rule 12(b) motion where the agreement was not attached to the complaint nor incorporated therein, but the complaint discussed it, the defendant appended it to its 12(b) motion, and the plaintiff did not challenge its authenticity
  4. Brooks v. AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Co.

    480 F.3d 579 (1st Cir. 2007)   Cited 128 times
    Noting that a breach of contract claim requires a showing of the existence of a valid and binding contract, that the defendant breached the contract's terms, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of that breach
  5. GFL Advantage Fund, Ltd. v. Colkitt

    272 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 125 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove fraud, the defendant must be "engaged in deceptive or manipulative conduct by injecting inaccurate information into the marketplace or creating a false impression of supply and demand for the security"
  6. Todisco v. Verizon Comm

    497 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2007)   Cited 45 times
    Noting that Glista and Bard held "only that when a court is confronted with a claim for benefits pursuant to section 502(B) [of ERISA], the court may invoke certain substantive equitable principles, in certain narrow factual circumstances, in order to adjudicate that claim for benefits"
  7. Financial Planning v. S.E.C

    482 F.3d 481 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 42 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Overturning SEC’s broad regulatory exemption contrary to Congress’s narrower exemption
  8. Stegall v. Ladner

    394 F. Supp. 2d 359 (D. Mass. 2005)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that § 36 does not create a private right of action
  9. ING Principal Protection Funds Derivative Litigation

    369 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D. Mass. 2005)   Cited 21 times
    Dismissing derivative claims against a mutual fund organized as a Massachusetts business trust based on the fact that plaintiffs had failed to make a demand
  10. Zerman v. Jacobs

    510 F. Supp. 132 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that under Section 29(b) "only unlawful contracts may be rescinded, not unlawful transactions made pursuant to lawful contracts"
  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 354,229 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 160,289 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  13. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 99,236 times   136 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."
  14. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 63,426 times   78 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"
  15. Section 1337 - Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in controversy, costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1337   Cited 3,087 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting jurisdiction for claims arising under statutes regulating interstate commerce
  16. Section 80a-1 - Findings and declaration of policy

    15 U.S.C. § 80a-1   Cited 468 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Declaring as a policy rationale for the Investment Company Act the prevention of conflicts of interest between investment companies and advisers
  17. Section 80b-1 - Findings

    15 U.S.C. § 80b-1   Cited 257 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Finding that investment advisory activities affect interstate commerce
  18. Section 80b-2 - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 80b-2   Cited 222 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Defining "foreign private adviser" in terms of the number of "investors in the United States in private funds"
  19. Section 80a-22 - Distribution, redemption, and repurchase of securities; regulations by securities associations

    15 U.S.C. § 80a-22   Cited 43 times
    Authorizing NASD, subject to SEC approval, to impose limits on mutual fund sales charges
  20. Section 270.17d-3 - Exemption relating to certain joint enterprises or arrangements concerning payment for distribution of shares of a registered open-end management investment company

    17 C.F.R. § 270.17d-3

    An affiliated person of, or principal underwriter for, a registered open-end management investment company and an affiliated person of such a person or principal underwriter shall be exempt from section 17(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d) ) and rule 17d-1 thereunder (17 CFR 270.17d-1 ), to the extent necessary to permit any such person or principal underwriter to enter into a written agreement with such company whereby the company will make payments in connection with the distribution of its shares