Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 540 F.2d 1233 - Paul Plante v. Troy C. Shivar, Jr.

Paul Plante v. Troy C. Shivar, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis

540 F.2d 1233 · 1976

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2014 · most notably Davis v. Zahradnick (1979), Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc. (1991)

12 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

14019761980199020002010decided

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 Carter v. Stanton · Johnson v. Rac Corp. · Leviner v. Richardson · Dale v. Hahn · Smith v. Blackledge

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

  1. “all parties shall be given Reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Whenever outside matters are presented to and not excluded by the trial court, [the motion to dismiss] should be considered on appeal as one for summary judgment even though the trial court characterized its action as a dismissal of the case for failure of plaintiffs to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'some indication by the court . . . that it is treating the 12(b)(6) motion as a motion for summary judgment,' with the consequent right in the opposing party to file counter affidavits or to pursue reasonable discovery.”
    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.