Case Citator › Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service

Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Federal Circuit
Citation
846 F.2d 746
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
167 of 167
Citing cases (total)
1,960
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service remains good law: all 167 flagged citations have been read, and none adversely treated the decision. The citing opinions positively applied Reynolds for Rule 12(b)(1) standards, including the plaintiff's burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence and a court's ability to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts.
More on how this was screened

Nearby adverse language instead appeared in history parentheticals for Scheuer v. Rhodes, Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, or other unrelated authority, or concerned an abrogated court rule rather than Reynolds.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,960 later cases cite Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service; 167 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 167 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace