Fleming v. Lind-Waldock & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
922 F.2d 20 · 1990
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 31 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp. (1994), Glassman v. Computervision Corp. (1996)
24 federal appellate · 31 district · 2 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 7 U.S.C. § 1 (CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995) · 7 U.S.C. § 6B
Relies on Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. · Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. New York · Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp. · Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Most often, facts are susceptible to objective verification. Conclusions, on the other hand, are empirically unverifiable in the usual case. They represent the pleader’s reactions to, sometimes called ‘inferences from,’ the underlying facts. It is only when such conclusions are logically compelled, or at least supported, by the stated facts, that is, when the suggested inference rises to what experience indicates is an acceptable level of probability, that ‘conclusions’ become ‘facts’ for pleading purposes.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he necessary factual averments are required with respect to each material element of the underlying legal theory.... This burden, of course, rests squarely upon the pleader; initial failure to satisfy the burden in no way obligates the district court to allow the parties an opportunity to offer matters outside the pleadings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“exempting, of course [from what the court must accept] those 'facts' which have since been conclusively contradicted by [the pleader's] concessions or otherwise, and likewise eschewing any reliance on bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, and 'opprobrious epithets.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.