Brooks v. Ross

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a claim is plausible if the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will yield evidence supporting the allegations
• concluding that “courts should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements”
• holding that plaintiff’s allegations were “too vague to provide notice to defendants of the contours of his § 1983 action.”
• holding that “a plaintiff must provide notice to defendants of her claims” and plead more than “sketchy or implausible” allegations
• holding that IIED claim accrued at the time of plaintiffs indictment, not upon the dismissal of his criminal case “even if the damages that [plaintiff] suffered ... continued throughout his trial”
• holding that a complaint must provide sufficient facts to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, and mere labels or formulaic recitations are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).