Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 962 F.2d 187 - McLaughlin

McLaughlin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

162
cited by 162 later decisions
1
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 162 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Conkling v. Turner (1994), Tal

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

7601990200020102020decided

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 Hishon v. King & Spalding · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Pereira v. United States · Schmuck v. United States

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

  1. “' United States v. Bortnovsky, 879 F.2d 30, 36 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9 , 74 S.Ct. 358, 362-63 , 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954)).”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises ... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing ... shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “lack of a formal motion is not [a] sufficient ground for a district court's dismissal without leave to amend, so long as the plaintiff has made its willingness to amend clear”
    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.