Maya v. Centex Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
658 F.3d 1060 · 2011
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“lack of Article III standing requires dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.