Gilbert v. Feld’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2020
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Parratt v. Taylor · Butz v. Economou
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Plaintiff “filed an amended charge with the EEOC, naming FEB & K and Mr. Braverman individually.” Answer at ¶ 85. (2) Plaintiffs “filing of a baseless amended charge with the EEOC against David Braverman was done as a pretext to leverage certain financial demands upon Mr. Braverman and FEB & K.” Id. at ¶ 86. (3) Plaintiff “has manipulated the legal process in filing and serving baseless charges with the EEOC, for the sole purpose of extortion, a purpose other than that for which it was designed.” Id. at ¶ 87. (4) Plaintiffs “action in filing a baseless EEOC charge and amended charge against FEB & K was taken as a pretext to leverage certain demands upon FEB & K.” Id. at ¶ 94. (5) Plaintiff “has manipulated the legal process in filing and serving baseless charges for the sole purpose of extortion, a purpose other than that for which it was designed.” Id. at ¶ 95.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is impossible to square the “heightened pleading standard” applied by the Fifth Circuit in this case with the liberal system of “notice pleading” set up by the Federal Rules. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint include only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he defense of qualified immunity can support the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the complaint itself establishes the circumstances required for a finding of qualified immunity.”
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.