Simon v. Philip Morris Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “have a 'significant possible effect on the outcome of the trial,'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Holborn Corp. v. Sawgrass Mut. Ins. Co. · Finance One Public Company Limited v. Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc.

2. “Amid the chaos and tumult of choice of law, there is at least one point on which there seems to be general agreement in the United States. This is that choice of applicable law should frequently depend upon the issue involved. The search in these instances is not for the state whose law will be applied to govern all issues in a case; rather it is for the rule of law that can most appropriately be applied to govern the particular issue. As a result situations do arise where the court must decide whether it should apply the rules of different states to determine different issues in a single case. This process of applying the rules of different states to determine different issues has the forbidding name of depecage.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 745 F. Supp. 2d 458 - Ellerton v. Ellerton

3. “Although the explosion occurred over Scotland, the causative misconduct occurred in Frankfurt (where the bomb eluded Pan Am’s X-ray inspection and was placed on Flight 103), or in London (where Pan Am failed to remove or inspect the unaccompanied bag that carried the bomb). Under these circumstances, where no negligence or misconduct took place in Scotland, and where no damages [to the persons claiming through airline passengers] were incurred in Scotland, there is really no reason at all why the compensability of the plaintiffs damages should be governed by Scottish law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In re Simon II Litigation