Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 463 F.3d 130 - Faulkner v. Beer

Faulkner v. Beer’s Empirical Analysis

463 F.3d 130 · 2006

Citation profile

123
cited by 123 later decisions
1
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C. (2010), South Cherry Street, LLC v. Hennessee Group LLC (2009)

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

880200620102020decided

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 Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. · Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P. · 126 S. Ct. 2916 - Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd. v. Billing · International Audiotext Network, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Friedl v. City of New York

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

  1. “[B]efore materials outside the record may become the basis for a dismissal, several conditions must be met. For example, even if a document is 'integral' to the complaint, it must be clear on the record that no dispute exists regarding the authenticity or accuracy of the document.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]t must ... be clear that there exist no material disputed issues of fact regarding the relevance of the document[s].”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.”
    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.