Bruce Goldfarb v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court erred in granting a motion to dismiss where the complaint \provide[d] sufficient detail about [the] claim to show that [the plaintiff] has a more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits\ (second and third alterations in original
• holding that because the Resource Conservation Recovery Act’s saving clause only bars actions “inconsistent with” the Clean Water Act, “RCRA mandates that are just different, or even greater, than what the CWA requires are not necessarily . . . ‘inconsistent’ with the CWA”
• noting that “a count may properly take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record’”
• noting that “a count may properly take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record”
• reserving judgment on a question outside of what the “appellate briefs centered on,” in a case that was being remanded to the district court
• reserving judgment on a question outside of what the “appellate briefs centered on,” in a case that was being remanded to the district court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).