Steven L. Jenisio’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably 177 F. Supp. 2d 897 - Iowa Health System v. Trinity Health Corp. (2001), 434 F. Supp. 2d 598 - Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc. (2006)
8 district · 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
Relies on Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris · Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Scott L. SILVER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. H&R BLOCK, INC.; Thomas M. Block; Ozzie Wenich, Appellees · Schiltz v. Burlington Northern Railroad · Bonin v. American Airlines, Inc.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“disputes ... growing out of ... the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the plaintiffs' claims are based solely on the interpretation of the documents [submitted] and the parties do not dispute the actual contents of the documents.” Jenisio v. Ozark Airlines, Inc., Retirement Plan, 187 F.3d 970 , 972 n. 3 (8th Cir.1999) (citing Silver v. H & R Block, Inc., 105 F.3d 394, 397 (8th Cir.1997)). Nor is a motion to dismiss automatically converted into one for summary judgment”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the plaintiffs’ claims are based solely on the interpretation of the documents and the parties do not dispute the actual contents of the documents”); Obrecht v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., No. 04-3089, 2005 WL 578477 , at (N.D.Iowa Mar.9, 2005) (”
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.