Browning v. Clinton’s Empirical Analysis
292 F.3d 235 · 2002
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 645 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 795 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Trudeau v. Federal Trade Commission (2006), Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development v. Ashcroft (2003)
37 federal appellate · 645 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation · Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin
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 795 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
12 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.