Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 490 F.3d 143 - Iqbal v. Hasty

Iqbal v. Hasty’s Empirical Analysis

490 F.3d 143 · 2007

Citation profile

523
cited by 523 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 48 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 523 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), Phillips v. County of Allegheny (2008)

47 federal appellate · 48 district · 5 state decisions

3820200720102020decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mathews v. Eldridge · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics

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

  1. “[W]e believe the Court is not requiring a universal standard of heightened fact pleading, but is instead requiring a flexible “plausibility standard,” which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “flexible `plausibility standard,' which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
    9 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.