Haddon v. Walters’s Empirical Analysis
43 F.3d 1488 · 1995
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School (1997), Simpkins v. District of Columbia Government (1997)
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 2 U.S.C. § 1219 (§ 303 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991) · 3 U.S.C. § 105 · 3 U.S.C. § 112 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 101 (Accountant, Compliance, and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003) · 5 U.S.C. § 103 · 5 U.S.C. § 104
Relies on Bell v. Hood · Dumas v. Town of Mount Vernon · Kleiman v. Department of Energy · 419 F. Supp. 814 - Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Jurisdiction, therefore, is not defeated as respondents seem to contend, by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover. For it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. If the court does later exercise its jurisdiction to determine that the allegations in the complaint do not state a ground for relief, then dismissal of the case would be on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction.... The previously carved out exceptions are that a suit may sometimes be dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“claim arises under the laws of the United States”
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.