Frydman v. Verschleiser’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are not entitled to credit and are devoid of plausible factual allegations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s],”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“effected the scheme through [another defendant]”
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.