Roth v. Jennings

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 document purportedly containing the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation is “integral to” a complaint alleging fraud
• holding that, in limited circumstances not present here, courts cannot consider allegations or materials outside of a complaint when evaluating a motion to dismiss
• holding that a court may take Judicial notice only “to determine what statements [the public records] contained” and not “for the truth of the matters asserted”
• holding that even if not attached to the complaint, a document which is “integral to the complaint may be considered by the court in ruling on [a Rule 12(b)(6)] motion.” (citations omitted)
• holding that even if not attached to the complaint, a document which is “integral to the complaint may be considered by the court in ruling on [a Rule 12(b)(6)] motion.” (citations omitted)
• holding that when the court takes judicial notice of publicly available government documents it does so only for the fact that the statements were made, not for their truth

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).