Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency’s Empirical Analysis
355 F.3d 661 · 2004
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 168 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 405 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc. (2008), Fox v. American Airlines, Inc. (2004)
47 federal appellate · 168 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 50 U.S.C. § 1801 (§ 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Victor H. Sparrow, Iii, v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al. · Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department
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 405 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A Rule 59(e) motion is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The statement should be plain because the principal function of pleadings under the Federal Rules is to give the adverse party fair notice of the claim asserted so as to enable him to answer and prepare for trial. The statement should be short because ‘[u]necessary prolixity in a pleading places an unjustified burden on the court and the party who must respond to it because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
3 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.