Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 FSUPP3D 222 - Search v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Search v. Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2015

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
September 2017
most recently cited

8 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Papasan v. Allain · Victor H. Sparrow, Iii, v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al.

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This apparent Catch-22 is the reason that “detailed factual allegations are not necessary to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,” but it does not excuse a Plaintiffs failure to “put forth factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Kenley v. District of Columbia, 83 F.Supp.3d 20 (D.D.C.2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Were that not the case, a plaintiff might merely invoke the magic words—e.g., “negligent hiring,” “constructive knowledge,” and the like— and thereby subject a defendant to costly and potentially meritless litigation.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.