Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 F.3d 75 - Rogan v. Menino

Rogan v. Menino’s Empirical Analysis

175 F.3d 75 · 1999

Citation profile

254
cited by 254 later decisions
1
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 188 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 254 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc. (2000), Rodi v. Southern New England School of Law (2004)

43 federal appellate · 188 district · 1 state decisions

14601999200020102020decided

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

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Malley v. Briggs · Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit · Withrow v. Larkin · Brandon v. Holt

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

  1. “a complaint must set forth `factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.' " Id. In judging the sufficiency of a complaint, courts must "differentiate between well-pleaded facts, on the one hand, and `bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocution, and the like,' on the other hand; the former must be credited, but the latter can safely be ignored.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the case must be sufficiently advanced in terms of pretrial discovery for the summary judgment target to know what evidence likely can be mustered, and (2) the target must have received appropriate notice. Notice, in this context, has two aspects: the summary judgment target is entitled to know both the grounds that the district court will consider and the point at which her obligation to bring forth evidence supporting the elements of her claim accrues.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the factual averments do not justify recovery on some theory adumbrated in the complaint, then — and only then — can we affirm a dismissal for failure to state an actionable claim.”
    2 later decisions 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.