McQueen v. Woodstream Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Rule 9(b) simply requires the pleader to provide a higher degree of notice by adequately alleging all of the requisite elements for the cause of action invoked.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• United States Ex Rel. Hood v. Satory Global, Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2013-05-23· cited 23×
• Eastern Savings Bank, Fsb v. Papageorge
  District of Columbia· 2014-03-10· cited 19×
• Kettey v. Saudi Ministry of Education
  District of Columbia· 2014-06-27· cited 13×
• Quality Air Services, L.L.C. v. Milwaukee Valve Co.
  District of Columbia· 2008-07-21· cited 12×
• McQueen v. Woodstream Corp.
  District of Columbia· 2009-12-09· cited 7×
• Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
  District of Columbia· 2017-03-29· cited 6×
• United States Ex Rel. Schneider v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  District of Columbia· 2016-12-22· cited 5×
• United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown
  District of Columbia· 2010-09-27
• Jones v. Nvr Incorporation
  District of Columbia· 2020-04-29
• Edwards v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2021-09-27

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
• Haines v. Kerner
  Supreme Court· 1972-02-22· cited 26,103×
• Charles Kowal v. MCI Communications Corporation
  D.C. Circuit· 1994-03-01· cited 1,980×
• Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,228 Rocco Dileo and Louise Dileo v. Ernst & Young
  Seventh Circuit· 1990-06-12· cited 1,050×
• Jarrell v. Tisch
  District of Columbia· 1987-02-18· cited 813×
• Howard Wool v. Tandem Computers Incorporated, Robert C. Marshall, Henry v. Morgan, and James G. Treybig
  Ninth Circuit· 1987-06-03· cited 673×
• Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., as Successor in Interest to Peach Tree Bancard Corporation, Judy Elliot, James Elliot
  Seventh Circuit· 1994-04-05· cited 659×
• Shekoyan v. Sibley International Corp.
  District of Columbia· 2002-08-16· cited 271×
• United States of America Ex Rel. Joel D. Joseph, and Joel D. Joseph v. Howard W. Cannon
  D.C. Circuit· 1981-01-30· cited 236×
• Schaller Telephone Company v. Golden Sky Systems, Inc.
  Eighth Circuit· 2002-09-04· cited 193×
• J. J. Blonien & Associates, Inc. v. Community Newspapers, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1990-10-29· cited 175×
• United States Ex Rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp.
  D.C. Circuit· 2002-04-16· cited 161×
• One-O-One Enterprises, Inc. v. Richard E. Caruso
  D.C. Circuit· 1988-06-07· cited 113×
• Christidis v. First Pennsylvania Mortgage Trust
  Third Circuit· 1983-09-12· cited 82×
• Harriet Alicke v. MCI Communications Corporation
  D.C. Circuit· 1997-04-29· cited 69×
• One-O-One Enterprises, Inc. v. Caruso
  District of Columbia· 1987-08-31· cited 28×
• Burman v. Phoenix Worldwide Industries, Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2005-08-30· cited 22×
• Price v. Phoenix Home Life Insurance
  District of Columbia· 1999-03-22· cited 14×
• Modern Settings, Inc. v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1985-02-27· cited 13×
• D'Ambrosio v. Colonnade Council
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1998-09-10· cited 10×