Jorge v. Rumsfeld’s Empirical Analysis
404 F.3d 556 · 2005
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 66 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC (2006), Morales-Cruz v. University of Puerto Rico (2012)
23 federal appellate · 66 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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Delaware State College v. Ricks · Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“augment those facts with facts extractable from documentation annexed to or incorporated by reference in the complaint.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he scope of the suit is ... constrained by [the administrative complaint's] allegations in the sense that the judicial complaint must bear some close relation to the allegations presented to the agency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a complaint's factual allegations are expressly linked to-and admittedly dependent upon-a document (the authenticity of which is not challenged), [then] that document effectively merges into the pleadings and the trial court can review it in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”
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.