Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 FRD 26 - McQueen v. Woodstream Corp.

McQueen v. Woodstream Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

9 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391

Relies on Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp. · Pauley v. Beth-Energy Mines, Inc. · Firestone v. K Firestone · DiLeo v. Ernst & Young

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

  1. “Where a pleading does not satisfy the heightened requirements of Rule 9(b), the court should freely grant leave to amend. See Firestone [v. Firestone], 76 F.3d (1205, 1209 (D.C.Cir.1996)] (recognizing that courts almost always grant leave to amend to cure deficiencies in pleading fraud). Accordingly, the court should reserve dismissal with prejudice for extreme situations where the pleader has had the opportunity to cure any deficiencies but either has not or cannot do so.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he communications between the parties transmitted to and from the District of Columbia were critical to the defendant's alleged fraudulent undertaking.”
    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.