Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 F.3d 918 - Labram v. Havel

Labram v. Havel’s Empirical Analysis

43 F.3d 918 · 1995

Citation profile

143
cited by 143 later decisions
February 2022
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 40 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. (2002), Trulock v. Freeh (2001)

15 federal appellate · 40 district ·

9001995200020102020decided

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 · Poffenberger v. Risser · Revene v. Charles County Commissioners · Petersen v. Bruen

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

  1. “[l]egal labels characterizing a claim cannot, standing alone, determine whether it fails to meet this extremely modest standard. Even where such a label reflects a flat misapprehension by counsel respecting a claim's legal basis, dismissal on that ground alone is not warranted so long as any needed correction of legal theory will not prejudice the opposing party.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “only if it can be said that on the claim as pleaded the claimant can prove no set of facts that would entitle her to relief.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.