In re Apple, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The plain text of the statute thus confers on all federal courts the authority to issue orders where three requirements are satisfied: 1. issuance of the writ must be “in aid of’ the issuing court’s jurisdiction; 2. the type of writ requested must be “necessary or appropriate” to provide such aid to the issuing court’s jurisdiction; and 3. the issuance of the writ must be “agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” If an application under the AWA meets all three of those requirements, the court “may” issue the requested writ in the exercise of its discretion — but it is never required to do so. See, e.g., Application of U.S. in Matter of Order Authorizing Use of a Pen Register, 538 F.2d 956, 961 (2d Cir. 1976), rev’d on other grounds, United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 , 98 S.Ct. 364 , 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977); Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728, 736 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. Civic Center Theatre, Inc., 333 F.2d 358, 360 (10th Cir. 1964); Chemical & Indus. Corp. v. Druffel, 301 F.2d 126 , 129 (6th Cir. 1962). A court deciding whether to take such discretionary action should consider three additional factors: 1. the closeness of the relationship between the person or entity to whom the proposed writ is directed and the matter over which the court has jurisdiction; 2. the reasonableness of the burden to be imposed on the writ’s subject; and 3. the necessity of the requested writ to aid the court’s jurisdiction (which does repli”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re United States