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.
11 canonical passages across 11 cases, quoted by 959 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 William R. Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | William R. Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corporation Anchor | green | “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable theory.” | 340 |
| 2 | Alan Aulson Et Ux. Maureen Aulson v. Charles Blanchard | green | “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like” | 269 |
| 3 | James L. McCoy Administrator of the Electrical Workers Trust Funds, Etc. v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology | green | “a plaintiff cannot expect a trial court to do his homework for him.” | 129 |
| 4 | Aversa v. United States | green | “may consider whatever evidence has been submitted, such as ... depositions and exhibits.” | 53 |
| 5 | Augustus John Camelio v. American Federation, Etc. | green | “the balance of competing factors ordinarily will weigh strongly in favor of declining jurisdiction over state law claims where the foundational federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage in the litigation.” | 51 |
| 6 | Maldonado v. Fontanes | green | “yet we need not accept as true legal conclusions from the complaint or 'naked assertions' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.” | 49 |
| 7 | Méndez Internet Management Services, Inc. v. Banco Santander De Puerto | green | “screen out rhetoric masquerading as litigation.” | 38 |
| 8 | Rodriguez-Cirilo v. Garcia | green | “plaintiffs must show that the defendants' conduct was the cause in fact of the alleged deprivation.” | 15 |
| 9 | Nichols v. The Cadle Company | green | “piecemeal appellate review invites mischief. because the practice poses a host of potential problems we have warned, time and again, that rule 54(b) should be used sparingly.” | 8 |
| 10 | TMTV CORP. v. Pegasus Broadcasting of San Juan | green | “sua sponte dismissal should be used sparingly, but is appropriate if it is 'crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile.” | 4 |
| 11 | Alicea-Rivera v. Sindicato De Aseguradores Para La Suscripcion Conjunta De Seguro De Responsabilidad Medico-Hospitalaria | green | “statements of intent are accorded minimal weight measured against these objective factors.” | 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.