Plan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 district · 13 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) whether there are more direct victims of the alleged wrongful conduct who can be counted on to vindicate the law as private attorneys general; (2) whether it will be difficult to ascertain the amount of the plaintiffs damages attributable to defendant’s wrongful conduct; and (3) whether the courts will have to adopt complicated rules apportioning damages to obviate the risk of multiple recoveries.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marceau v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1269 · Arkansas Carpenters' Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris Inc.

2. “[A] plaintiff who complained of harm flowing merely from the misfortunes visited upon a third person by the defendant’s acts was generally said to stand at too remote a distance to recover”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Living Designs, Inc. And Plant Exchange, Inc., Hawai'i Corporations v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, a Delaware Corporation, Anthurium Acres, a Hawai'i General Partnership, Successor in Interest to Island Tropicals Mueller Horticultural Partners, a Hawai'i Limited Partnership v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, a Delaware Corporation, McConnell Inc., a California Corporation v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, a Delaware Corporation, Living Designs, Inc. And Plant Exchange, Inc., Hawai'i Corporations David Matsuura, Individually and Dba Orchid Isle Nursery Stephen Matsuura, Individually and Dba Hawaiian Dendrobium Farm Fuku-Bonsai, Inc. David W. Fukumoto Living Designs, Inc. And Plant Exchange, Inc. McConnell Inc., a California Corporation Anthurium Acres, a Hawai'i General Partnership, Successor in Interest to Island Tropicals Mueller Horticultural Partners v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, a Delaware Corporation · Hill v. Opus Corp.

3. “It will be virtually impossible for plaintiffs to prove with any certainty: (1) the effect any smoking cessation programs or incentives would have on the number of smokers among the plan beneficiaries; (2) the countereffect that the tobacco companies' direct fraud would have had on the smokers, despite the best efforts of the Funds; and (3) other reasons why individual smokers would continue smoking, even after having been informed of the dangers of smoking and having been offered smoking cessation programs. On a fundamental level, these difficulties of proving damages stem from the agency of the individual smokers in deciding whether, and how frequently, to smoke. In this light, the direct injury test can be seen as wisely limiting standing to sue in those situations where the chain of causation leading to damages is not complicated by the intervening agency of third parties (here, the smokers) from whom the plaintiffs' injuries derive.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Republic of Guatemala v. Tobacco Institute, Inc. · 83 F. Supp. 2d 125 - In Re tobacco/governmental Health Care Costs