6 F. Supp. 2d 480 - Clayton v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1510 · 18 U.S.C. § 1511 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Conley v. Gibson · Kentucky v. Graham · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In considering a 12(b)(1) motion, the complaint will be construed broadly and liberally.... However, unlike a 12(b)(6) analysis, the court will not draw argumentative inferences in favor of the plaintiff.... The burden of proof is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Finally, in ruling on a 12(b)(1) motion, the court may consider exhibits outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding into one for summary judgment.”
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.