Smith v. Regional Transit Authority’s Empirical Analysis
756 F.3d 340 · 2014
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (§ 4 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. · Vanderbrook v. Unitrin Preferred Insurance · Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because a federal district court has jurisdiction to decide whether or not a plan is an ERISA plan as claimed by the plaintiff in the complaint, we conclude that, under Supreme Court precedent and [ACS Recovery Services, Inc. v. Griffin, 723 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 2013) ], the proper procedural vehicle to raise the question of whether a purported ERISA plan is a “governmental plan” is either Rule 12(b)(6) or, if factual information outside the pleadings is needed, Rule 56 (if factual issues cannot be resolved then, of course, a trial may be needed).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“20 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 21 II. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION A. Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) governs challenges to a court's subject matter jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rosales v. Bazaldua
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.