114 F. Supp. 2d 797 - Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

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

1. “Rule 9(b) requires that “[i]n all aver-ments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” “ ‘Circumstances’ include such matters as the time, place and content of false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what was obtained or given up thereby.” Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1062 (8th Cir.1982), adhered to on reh’g, 710 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008 , 104 S.Ct. 527 , 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983). Because one of the main purposes of the rule is to facilitate a defendant’s ability to respond and to prepare a defense to charges of fraud, Greenwood v. Dittmer, 776 F.2d 785, 789 (8th Cir.1985), conclusory allegations that a defendant’s conduct was fraudulent and deceptive are not sufficient to satisfy the rule. In re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig., 593 F.Supp. 612, 620 (D.Minn.1984).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Kuiper v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. · 453 F. Supp. 2d 1058 - Remmes v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.

2. “A recognized aspect of Iowa law is the legal theory of civil liability for conspiracy to commit a wrongful act. Basic Chems., Inc. v. Benson, 251 N.W.2d 220, 232-33 (Iowa 1977); Cora v. Strock, 441 N.W.2d 392, 394 (Iowa Ct.App.1989). Howev6er, the Iowa Supreme Court has repeatedly “recognized that ‘[c]ivil conspiracy is not in itself actionable; rather it is the acts causing injury undertaken in furtherance of the conspiracy which give rise to the action.’ ” Robert’s River Rides, Inc. v. Steamboat Dev. Corp., 520 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Iowa 1994) (quoting Basic Chems., Inc., 251 N.W.2d at 233 , and Lindaman v. Bode, 478 N.W.2d 312, 317 (Iowa Ct.App.1991)). The Iowa Supreme Court explained the nature of civil conspiracy in Basic Chemicals as follows: A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose, or to accomplish by unlawful means some purpose not in itself unlawful. It may be proven by substantial evidence. Basic Chems., Inc., 251 N.W.2d at 232 ; accord Cora, 441 N.W.2d at 394 (quoting Basic Chemicals). To put it another way, civil conspiracy requires “mutual mental action coupled with an intent to commit the act which results in injury.” Basic Chems., Inc., 251 N.W.2d at 233 . Thus, “[t]he principal element of conspiracy is an agreement or understanding between two or more persons to effect a wrong against or injury upon another.” Id.; accord Locksley v. Anesthesiologists of Cedar Rapids, P.C., 333 N.W.2d 451, 456 (Iowa ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 173 F. Supp. 2d 876 - Busch v. City of Anthon, Iowa · 293 F. Supp. 2d 958 - Williams v. SECURITY NAT. BANK OF SIOUX CITY, IA.

3. “1. In a design defect products liability case, what test applies under Iowa law to determine whether cigarettes are unreasonably dangerous? What requirements must be met under the applicable test? 2. Under Iowa law, can Defendants rely on Comment i of § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts to show that cigarettes are not unreasonably dangerous? 3. Under Iowa law, does the common knowledge of the health risks associated with smoking, including addiction, preclude tort and warranty liability of cigarette manufacturers to smokers because cigarettes are not unreasonably dangerous insofar as the risks are commonly known? If yes, then: a. [During] what period of time would such knowledge be common? b. Is there a duty to warn of the risks associated with smoking cigarettes in light of such common knowledge? c. Is reliance on advertisements, statements or representations suggesting that there are no risks associated with smoking, including addiction, justifiable in light of such common knowledge? 4. Under Iowa law, can Plaintiffs bring a civil conspiracy claim arising out of alleged wrongful conduct that may or may not have been an intentional tort— i.e., strict liability for manufacturing a defective product or intentionally agreeing to. produce an unreasonably dangerous product? 5. Under Iowa law, can a manufacturer’s alleged failure to warn or to disclose material information give rise to a fraud claim when the relationship between a Plaintiff and a Defendant is solely that o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd.