Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 8 F.3d 905 - Kuehl v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Kuehl v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

8 F.3d 905 · 1993

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
January 2023
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 17 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency (2004), Westinghouse Securities Litigation Md (1996)

14 federal appellate · 17 district ·

3901993200020102020decided

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

Relies on Foman v. Davis · Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez · HMG Property Investors, Inc. v. Parque Industrial Rio Canas, Inc. · Jones v. Winnepesaukee Realty

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

  1. “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is well settled that the question on review 'is not whether we would have imposed a more lenient penalty had we been sitting in the trial judge's place, but whether the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing the penalty he did.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Mr. Langmade’s vague and conclusory references to the individuals and entities he believes committed the alleged sexual assault do not satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). In addition, he fails to allege facts demonstrating that each named Defendant was acting under color of state law. Merely making vague and conclusory allegations that his rights have been violated does not entitle a pro se pleader to a day in court, regardless of how liberally the court construes such pleadings The burden Mr. Langmade places upon Defendants and the Court to identify, interpret, and respond to his specific claims is unreasonable. In short, the Court is unable to determine why Mr. Langmade has filed this action against these Defendants in this Court.”
    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.