St Clair’s Empirical Analysis
880 F.2d 199 · 1989
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 43 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 185 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda (2004), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Watkins (1993)
40 federal appellate · 43 district · 7 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. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Land US v. Dollar · First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants · Bauer v. Waldschmidt
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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“affidavits or any other evidence properly before the court.... It then becomes necessary for the party opposing the motion to present affidavits or any other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing that the court, in fact, possesses subject matter jurisdiction.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion can attack the substance of a complaint's jurisdictional allegations despite their formal sufficiency, and in so doing rely on affidavits or any other evidence properly before the court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether a claim is ripe for adjudication goes to a court's subject matter jurisdiction under the case or controversy clause of article III of the federal Constitution.”
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.