Richards v. Duke University’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 34 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 38 U.S.C. § 1981 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1986
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Wilson v. Garcia
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not automatically subject to the very liberal standards afforded to a non-attorney pro se plaintiff because an attorney is presumed to have a knowledge of the legal system and need less protections from the court.” See Richards v. Duke Univ., 480 F.Supp.2d 222, 234 (D.D.C.2007); Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62 , 82 n. 4 (2d Cir.2001) (stating that”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court also cannot properly assert personal jurisdiction over the individual Microsoft Defendants ... in their personal or official capacities in this case. [The Microsoft Defendants] cannot be sued in this court in their personal capacities because they do not have sufficient minimum contacts in their personal capacity, outside of their work for Microsoft Corporation, to establish jurisdiction. They are all domiciled in the State of Washington and have only made trips to the District of Columbia in their official capacities representing Microsoft Corporation or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.... [The Microsoft Defendants] cannot be sued in this Court based on their activities within the scope of their employment ... because it is well-settled law that a court does not have jurisdiction over individual officers and employees of a corporation solely because the court has jurisdiction over the corporation. Since [The Microsoft Defendants] do not have sufficient personal contacts with the forum as stated above, but only official contacts within their capacity with the Microsoft Corporation or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, this court cannot properly assert jurisdiction over them in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The tortious activity that plaintiff alleges in this count, the fraudulent grading schemes at Duke and Georgetown and the misrepresentations by Dean Sockwell, are distinct actions or events, both from one another and from the other counts in her complaint, and these discrete incidents cannot be joined together as a continuing violation simply because plaintiff alleges that it was all part of an ongoing and widespread conspiracy.”
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.