131 F. Supp. 2d 191 - Poling v. Farrah’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 22 (§ 12 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann · GTE New Media Services Inc. v. BellSouth Corp. · United Liberty Life Insurance v. Ryan · Kidder Peabody Company Incorporated v. Maxus Energy Corporation a F 1-10 · Hans Oetiker v. Jurid Werke, G. M. B. H
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provision of Section 27 by itself cannot give the Court personal jurisdiction,” because the plaintiff must satisfy the venue provision before he can rely upon the Act's grant of nationwide service. Id. at 193. Thus, the Poling Court proceeded to analyze whether, as a factual matter, the Act's venue provision was satisfied, observing that it had jurisdiction only because the terms of the venue provision were met. Id. 7 . Though analyzing the phrase”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.