Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 370 F.2d 795 - Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publication, Inc.

Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publication, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

370 F.2d 795 · 1967

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Kauffman v. Moss (1970), Schwartz v. Kursman (In Re Harry Levin, Inc.) (1994)

11 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

1201967197019801990200020102020decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Dioguardi v. Durning · Continental Collieries, Inc. v. Shober

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

  1. “## 1-4 above. Rule 12(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which relates to motions for more definite statements, provides in pertinent part: “If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, he may move for a more definite statement before interposing his responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. * * * ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he draconian remedy of dismissal of the action should be invoked only as a last resort and not on the first evidence of inability of an inarticulate plaintiff to satisfy the requirements of the court.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief * * * shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded. ****** (e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct ; Consistency. (1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required.””
    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.