Case Citator › Alan Weiner, D.P.M. v. Klais and Company, Inc.

Alan Weiner, D.P.M. v. Klais and Company, Inc.

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

Abrogated
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
108 F.3d 86
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
103 of 103
Citing cases (total)
672
Treatment dates
2002
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Alan Weiner, D.P.M. v. Klais and Company, Inc. was abrogated in part; one confirmed treatment is listed below. All 103 flagged citations were read.
More on how this was screened

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. displaced Weiner's separate pleading requirement that a complaint allege facts supporting every material element. Later opinions continued to apply its unaffected rule for documents identified in and central to a complaint. Nearby adverse language about other cases, and repeated citations to the same opinions, did not establish additional treatment of Weiner.

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.

672 later cases cite Alan Weiner, D.P.M. v. Klais and Company, Inc.; 103 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 Alan Weiner, D.P.M. v. Klais and Company, Inc.?

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.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court abrogated Weiner's heightened pleading statement requiring allegations supporting every material element, holding that Rule 8 generally requires only a short and plain statement giving fair notice of the claim.

    Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Furthermore, imposing the Court of Appeals’ heightened pleading standard in employment discrimination cases conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which provides that a complaint must include only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Such a statement must simply “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds.upon which it rests.” ... Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Alan Weiner, D.P.M. v. Klais and Company, Inc. 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