550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 276,716 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
Holding that “[t]o the extent Swartz seeks a declaration of defendants' liability for damages sought for his other causes of action,” claim must be dismissed as “merely duplicative”
Concluding that in Hoover, the Supreme Court established that "the Midcal test does not apply to sovereign state acts, which are immune from antitrust liability so long as they [are not pre-empted due to their having] authoriz[ed] per se illegal activities"
Explaining that we "are not free to disregard the plain language of a statute and, instead, conjure up legislative purposes and intent out of thin air"