Beam v. IPCO Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
838 F.2d 242 · 1988
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Venture Associates Corporation v. Zenith Data Systems Corporation (1993), Northern Indiana Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South Bend (1998)
34 federal appellate · 9 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. § 1912 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Carter v. Stanton · Hope v. Commissioner · 113 Wis. 2d 561 - Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f 'matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court' in connection with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the district court is required to treat the motion to dismiss as a summary judgment motion.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our determination to review this case as a grant of a motion to dismiss affects only the form of this decision. We would reach the same outcome based on very similar reasoning if we treated this as a case in which the motion to dismiss was effectively converted into a summary judgment motion without proper notice to the parties. While notice that a motion to dismiss has been converted to a summary judgment motion should be given, we have held that “the failure to do so does not necessarily mandate reversal where nothing else could have been raised to alter the entry of summary judgment." [citations omitted]. In light of our conclusion that Beam’s complaint does not rely on a valid legal theory, it is clear that further development of the facts would not have helped Beam.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Lawyers have a duty of candor to the tribunal. Counsel for appellant would be well-advised to observe that violations of this duty can lead to sanctions even more severe than payment of an opponent's fees and costs.”
2 later decisions 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.