Albiero v. City of Kankakee’s Empirical Analysis
122 F.3d 417 · 1997
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Brokaw v. Mercer County (2000), Bennett v. Schmidt (1998)
38 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Bartholet v. REISHAUER A.G.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A complaint must narrate a claim, which means a grievance such as `the City violated my rights by preventing me from renovating my apartments.' Having specified the wrong done to him, a plaintiff may substitute one legal theory for another without altering the complaint.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hat is why we have held that a plaintiff may supplement the complaint with factual narration in an affidavit or brief. If the extra assertions make out a claim, then the complaint stands.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A complaint may not be dismissed unless it is impossible to prevail “under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” That is why we have held that a plaintiff may supplement the complaint with factual narration in an affidavit or brief. If the extra assertions make out a claim, then the complaint stands. Plaintiffs’ memorandum opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss contained assertions that led the judge to spot a potential equal protection theory. Given Conley and its successors, the judge should have accepted those statements and moved forward; dismissing the complaint with leave to replead extra facts was inconsistent with the federal rules and set the stage for the jurisdictional problem we now confront.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.