Williamson v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
645 F.2d 404 · 1981
Citation profile
339 federal appellate · 114 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,068 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda (2004), Herbert v. National Academy of Sciences (1992)
339 federal appellate · 114 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 Baker v. Carr · Bell v. Hood · Powell v. McCormack · Hagans v. Lavine · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.
Cited together with Bell v. Hood · Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
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 1,068 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he trial court may proceed as it never could under 12(b)(6) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Because at issue in a factual 12(b)(1) motion is the trial court’s jurisdiction— its very power to hear the case — there is substantial authority that the trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case. In short, no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiffs allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims.”
64 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) an agreement among the parties leaves so little power in the hands of the partner or venturer that the arrangement in fact distributes power as would a limited partnership; or (2) the partner or venturer is so inexperienced and unknowledgeable in business affairs that he is incapable of intelligently exercising his partnership or venture powers; or (3) the partner or venturer is so dependent on some unique entrepreneurial or managerial ability of the promoter or manager that he cannot replace the manager of the enterprise or otherwise exercise meaningful partnership or venture powers.”
47 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]o purpose is served by indirectly arguing the merits in the context of federal jurisdiction. Judicial economy is best promoted when the existence of a federal right is directly reached and, where no claim is found to exist, the case is dismissed on the merits. This refusal to treat indirect attacks on the merits as Rule 12(b)(1) motions provides, moreover, a greater level of protection to the plaintiff who in truth is facing a challenge to the validity of his claim: the defendant is forced to proceed under Rule 12(b)(6) ... or Rule 56 ... both of which place greater restrictions on the district court’s discretion.”
43 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.