Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights
551 U.S. 308 (2007) Cited 9,448 times 105 Legal AnalysesHolding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.
552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,385 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that "for individual defendants' stock sales to raise an inference of scienter, plaintiffs must provide a 'meaningful trading history' for purposes of comparison to the stock sales within the class period," and that "[e]ven if the defendant's trading history is simply not available, for reasons beyond a plaintiff's control, the plaintiff is not excused from pleading the relevant history"
In re Silicon Graphics Inc.
183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,443 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that stock sales of individual defendants are only indicative of scienter where they are "dramatically out of line with prior trading practices" (quoting In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig., 886 F.2d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 1989))
Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital
514 U.S. 87 (1995) Cited 432 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that interpretive rules, which are not subject to the notice and comment procedure, are not accorded the weight that regulations are given
Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.
143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,066 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the court is “not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint”
Gompper v. Visx, Inc.
298 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 747 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that leave to amend need not be granted if it would be "a futile exercise"
Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner
439 U.S. 522 (1979) Cited 354 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that where a taxpayer using the "cost or market, whichever is lower" method did not comply with section 1.471-4, its inventory failed to clearly reflect income
Or. Pub. Emps. Ret. Fund v. Apollo Grp. Inc.
774 F.3d 598 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 265 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that allegations of loss causation must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ’s heightened "particularity" requirement
In re Vantive Corp. Securities Litigation
283 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 351 timesHolding that, although a sale of 74% was suspicious, a strong inference was not raised because analysis of the remaining factors did not raise suspicion
Heliotrope General, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
189 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 372 timesHolding where allegedly omitted information was part of the "total mix of information" available, plaintiff could not state a claim under § 10b
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 357,835 times 950 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,084 times 197 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 39,880 times 331 Legal AnalysesRequiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,663 times 52 Legal AnalysesGranting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party
Section 5 - Bringing in additional parties
15 U.S.C. § 5 Cited 99 times 3 Legal AnalysesAllowing nationwide service only if the court finds “that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court”