Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond

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 plaintiffs failed to state a class-of-one claim despite arguing that the defendants’ justification was “false and unsubstantiated” because such conclusory allegations “do[] not alter the facial legitimacy of the state defendants’ purpose for [their conduct]”
• stating that legal conclusions presented as factual assertions “need not be accepted as true under Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny”
• noting that for purposes of a motion to dismiss “the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true”
• providing that courts may consider such documents attached to motion to dismiss without converting the motion to one for summary judgment
• explaining that at the motion to dismiss stage “the court must determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’”
• explaining that when a document “appear[s] in the record,” and is “referred to in the complaint” the “court may consider” it “so long as [it is] central to the claims contained therein.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).