Winegarner v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Plaintiff “cannot merely plop ‘upon information and belief’ in front of a conclusory allegation and thereby render it non- conclusory”
• noting that plaintiffs “cannot merely plop ‘upon information and belief’ in front of a conclusory allegation and thereby render it non-conclusory”
• explaining that those “magic words” are appropriate only “when ‘the facts are peculiarly within the possession and 17 of culpability plausible’” (quoting Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2010))
• affirming judgment of dismissal upon district court determination that challenged New York regulations of charitable organizations withstood intermediate scrutiny
• defining a prior restraint as “a law, regulation or judicial order that suppresses speech . . . on the basis of the speech’s content and in advance of its actual expression” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• defining “a prior restraint as ‘a law, regulation, or judicial order that suppresses speech—or provides for its suppression at the discretion of government officials—on the basis of the speech’s content and in advance of its actual expression” (emphasis added

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).