Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 17 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 Zulema Longoria v. San Benito Indep Con Sch Dist.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Zulema Longoria v. San Benito Indep Con Sch Dist Anchor | green | “though the complaint need not contain 'detailed factual allegations,' it must contain sufficient factual material to 'allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” | 8 |
| 2 | Freddie Coleman v. David Sweetin | green | “a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” | 5 |
| 3 | King v. Baylor University | green | “plausibility is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” | 4 |
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.