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

laintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co., 540 F.3d at 1274 (citation and quotation omitted); see also lqbal, slip op. at 15 (holding the a complaint must be dismissed "where the well-pleade

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

laintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co., 540 F.3d at 1274 (citation and quotation omitted); see also lqbal, slip op. at 15 (holding the a complaint must be dismissed "where the well-pleade

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

laintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co., 540 F.3d at 1274 (citation and quotation omitted); see also lqbal, slip op. at 15 (holding the a complaint must be dismissed "where the well-pleade

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

laintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co., 540 F.3d at 1274 (citation and quotation omitted); see also lqbal, slip op. at 15 (holding the a complaint must be dismissed "where the well-pleade

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

laintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co., 540 F.3d at 1274 (citation and quotation omitted); see also lqbal, slip op. at 15 (holding the a complaint must be dismissed "where the well-pleade

eading a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home BuildersI, Defenders of Wildlife 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. 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 this

laintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do not, the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed." James River Ins. Co., 540 F.3d at 1274 (citation and quotation omitted); see also lqbal, slip op. at 15 (holding the a complaint must be dismissed "where the well-pleade