9 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 510 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly Anchor | green | “asking for plausible grounds to infer an agreement does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement.” | 158 |
| 2 | In re Picard | green | “the united states has a compelling interest in allowing domestic estates to recover fraudulently transferred property.” | 105 |
| 3 | Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (In re Madoff Securities) | green | “he court directs that the following adversary proceedings be returned to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and order . . . .” | 96 |
| 4 | Williams v. Time Warner Inc. | green | “a district court, in deciding whether to dismiss a complaint under rule 12(b)(6), is generally limited to the facts as presented within the four corners of the complaint, to documents attached to the complaint, or to documents incorporated within the complaint by reference.” | 59 |
| 5 | Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. v. Gredd (In Re Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd.) | green | “he ponzi scheme presumption remains the law of this circuit.” | 30 |
| 6 | Donell v. Kowell | green | “the mere existence of a ponzi scheme is sufficient to establish actual intent to defraud.” | 22 |
| 7 | Picard v. Cohmad Securities Corp. (In Re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC) | green | “the fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor/transferor . . . is established as a matter of law by virtue of the 'ponzi scheme presumption” | 19 |
| 8 | In Re May | green | “such indicators or badges, when established either singularly, but more often in combination, may justify the inference of the requisite intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.” | 18 |
| 9 | Picard v. Cohmad Securities Corp. (In Re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC) | green | “he fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor/transferor . . . is established as a matter of law by virtue of the 'ponzi scheme presumption” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.