Duncan v. Muzyn’s Empirical Analysis
885 F.3d 422 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Auer v. Robbins · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an injury-in-fact must be 'particularized,' meaning it 'affect[s] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Turaani v. Sessions“[S]imply calling something ambiguous does not make it so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be 'concrete,' meaning that it 'actually exist[s].'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Turaani v. Sessions
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.