Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 943 F.2d 485 - Schatz

Schatz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

169
cited by 169 later decisions
7
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 13 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 169 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Matkari (1993), Ziemba v. Cascade International, Inc. (2001)

13 federal appellate · 13 district · 8 state decisions

8001990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Chiarella v. United States · Alexander v. United States · Marino v. United States · Pinter v. Dahl

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

  1. “We have long held 'that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief should not be granted unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “that 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.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the complaint, we construe the factual allegations “in the light most favorable to plaintiff.” However, we are “not so bound with respect to [the complaint’s] legal conclusions. Were it otherwise, Rule 12(b)(6) would serve no function, for its purpose is to provide a defendant with a mechanism for testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint.””
    2 later decisions 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.