Epstein Secrets

ng a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of thi

o relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Ena'a, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and quotation omitted); see also Iqbal, slip op. at 15 (complaint must be dismissed "where the well

ng a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of thi

o relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Ena'a, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and quotation omitted); see also Iqbal, slip op. at 15 (complaint must be dismissed "where the well

ng a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of thi

o relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Ena'a, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and quotation omitted); see also Iqbal, slip op. at 15 (complaint must be dismissed "where the well

ng a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of thi

o relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Ena'a, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and quotation omitted); see also Iqbal, slip op. at 15 (complaint must be dismissed "where the well

ng a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of thi

o relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Ena'a, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and quotation omitted); see also Iqbal, slip op. at 15 (complaint must be dismissed "where the well