Leidholdt v. L.F.P. Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc. (1992), Reddy v. Litton Industries, Inc. (1990)
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1912
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Time, Inc. v. Hill · Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the words can be understood in a defamatory sense in light of the facts surrounding the publication, including the medium by which and the audience to which the statement is disseminated; (2) whether the context in which the statements were made, e.g., public debate or a labor dispute, would lead the audience to anticipate persuasive speech such as “epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole”; and, (3) whether. the language used is the kind generated in a “spirited legal dispute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Appellant] has conceded on appeal that under California and New York law the tort of outrage is not separable from intentional infliction of emotional distress; we accordingly consider outrage and emotional distress as one claim, though they were separately pleaded in the complaint.”
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.