Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 F. Supp. 2d 400 - BEP, INC. v. Atkinson

174 F. Supp. 2d 400 - BEP, INC. v. Atkinson’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2020

1 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

80200120102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Desist v. United States · Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp.

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

  1. ““[T]ort liability arising from a conspiracy presupposes that the coconspirator is legally capable of committing a tort, that is, that [the co-conspirator] owes a duty to the plaintiff recognized by law and is potentially subject to liability for breach of that duty.” ... “[A] cause of action for civil conspiracy may therefore not arise if the alleged conspirator, though allegedly a participant in the agreement underlying the injury, was not personally bound by the duty violated by the wrongdoing.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “a civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons by an agreement or understanding to accomplish an unlawful act or to use unlawful means to accomplish an act not in itself illegal, with the further requirement that the act or means employed must result in damages to the plaintiff.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “plaintiff has, pursuant to Kann , properly asserted under Maryland law a claim of breach of fiduciary duty”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.