William R. Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \court[s] need not conjure up unpled allegations or contrive elaborately arcane scripts\ to save a complaint from dismissal
• noting that \court[s] need not conjure up unpled allegations or contrive elaborately arcane scripts\ to save a complaint from dismissal
• holding that “it is the plaintiff's burden to take the step which brings his case safely into the next phase of the litigation. The court need not conjure up unpled allegations or contrive elaborately arcane scripts in order to” allow the plaintiff's complaint to survive
• recognizing “inferential” factual allegations to defeat a motion to dismiss
• upholding dismissal of PMPA claim where allegation that offer made by franchisor “was other than bona fide was merely a subjective characterization, devoid of a minimally sufficient factual predicate.”
• emphasizing minimal nature of requirements imposed by Rule 12(b)(6) and explaining that a motion to dismiss should be granted only if the complaint \shows no set of facts which could entitle the plaintiff to relief\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).