Missere v. Gross

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that lobbying and pressuring officials to take action was not sufficient to establish that a private party was a state actor
• observing that “[t]he touchstone of joint action is often a plan, prearrangement, conspiracy, custom, or policy shared” by the private actor and the [state] actor”
• explaining that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is “governed by the identical standard of review” as a motion to dismiss (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is “governed by the identical standard of review” as a motion to dismiss (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• stating that some courts have framed the standard as whether “a prudent person, looking 4 objectively at the incidents, would think them roughly equivalent” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• noting that the Second Circuit rejected an overly broad reading of Engquist in Analytical Diagnostic based on the Supreme Court distinguishing “between government acting as proprietor and manager of its own operations (e.g., as employer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).