Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 878 F.2d 772 - Wilson v. Rackmill

Wilson v. Rackmill’s Empirical Analysis

878 F.2d 772 · 1989

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
1
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 41 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Mitchell v. Horn (2003), Jackson II v. State of Arizona (1989)

18 federal appellate · 41 district · 1 state decisions

44019891990200020102020decided

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. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Neitzke v. Williams · Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co. · Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp.

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

  1. “Dismissal under Sec. 1915(d) is appropriate when the claims are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or on clearly baseless factual contentions.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When a complaint raises an arguable question of law which the district court ultimately finds is correctly resolved against the plaintiff, dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds is appropriate, but dismissal on the basis of frivolousness is not.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a problem more properly addressed under Rule 12(b)(6)”
    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.