Case Citator › Lum v. Bank of America

Lum v. Bank of America

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
361 F.3d 217
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
95 of 95
Citing cases (total)
222
Treatment dates
2010
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Lum v. Bank of America is abrogated in part: all 95 flagged citations have been read, with the one confirmed treatment listed below. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation held that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly displaced Lum's statement that an antitrust conspiracy theory based on parallel conduct need not plead facts constituting plus factors.
More on how this was screened

The reviewed opinions reported that treatment while continuing to apply Lum's unaffected Rule 9(b), fraud-particularity, and other pleading rules, or placed nearby adverse language on unrelated authorities.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

222 later cases cite Lum v. Bank of America; 95 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Lum v. Bank of America?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Third Circuit held that Twombly abrogated Lum's rule that plaintiffs alleging agreement through parallel conduct need not plead facts constituting plus factors.

    In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation · Third Circuit · filed

    Accordingly, although a plaintiff still need not plead specific evidence, see supra note 17, Twombly abrogates our earlier statements, see, e.g., Lum, 361 F.3d at 230, that a theory of agreement resting on parallel conduct need not plead facts that, if true, would constitute plus factors.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lum v. Bank of America and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace