Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 777 SE2D 314 - Fox v. Johnson

Fox v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2015

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Conley v. Gibson · Brady v. State of Maryland · Ragsdale v. Kennedy

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a federal court's dismissal of claims pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) is not an adjudication on the merits for purposes of collaterally estopping ... plaintiff[s] from raising the same or related claim[ ] under State law in our State's courts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he purpose of a motion under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) is to test[ ] the sufficiency of a complaint and not to resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] dismissal under [North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 12(b)(6) operates as an adjudication on the merits unless the court specifies that the dismissal is without prejudice.”
    1 later decision 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.