Reeves v. Guiffrida’s Empirical Analysis
756 F.2d 1141 · 1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2008
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 4072
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc. · Williamson v. Tucker · Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League · Meister Bros. v. Macy
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the defendant’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction is also a challenge to the existence of a federal cause of action, the proper course of action for the district court (assuming that the plaintiffs federal claim is not immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction and is not insubstantial and frivolous) is to find that jurisdiction exists and deal with the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case.... This refusal to treat indirect attacks on the merits as Rule 12(b)(1) motions provides... 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)(for failure to state a claim) or Rule 56 (summary judgment)' — both of which place greater restrictions on the district court’s discretion.”
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.