Thomas Chapman v. Yellow Cab Cooperative

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 plaintiff need only plead “a plausible claim, after which he receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint”
• holding that a plaintiff need only plead “a plausible claim, after which he receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint”
• holding that, to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[i]t is enough to plead a plausible claim, after which ‘a plaintiff receives that benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint”
• explaining that plaintiffs are only required “to plead claims rather than facts corresponding to the elements of a legal theory”
• stating that a motion for more definite statement “is the right way to ask plaintiffs to lay out details that enable the defendants to respond intelligently and the court to handle the litigation effectively” (citation omitted)
• affirming dismissal with prejudice when plaintiff “disobeyed” order seeking additional details

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).