19 F. Supp. 2d 352 - Forbes v. Eagleson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company · Wood v. Carpenter · Bailey Assignee v. Glover et al.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs argue that Eagleson and the NHL defendants, pursuant to their alleged arrangement, may have undermined Goodenow’s collective bargaining negotiations and even contributed to an April 1992 strike by the players. However, other than the general allegation that the players' compensation was artificially suppressed from the mid-1970’s through the end of 1991 (Comp.U 54), there are no allegations in plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint of such injury or of such wrongdoing. Accord- • ingly, ... I will dismiss the remainder of Count I for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Forbes v. Eagleson“arrangement between the NHL and Eagleson pursuant to which Eagleson delivers the players to the NHL under the terms of a Collective Agreement more advantageous to the NHL than it would have been had Eagleson negotiated for the NHLPA in good faith in exchange for which the NHL granted Eagleson the permission he needs to run international hockey.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Forbes v. Eagleson“a civil RICO claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knew or should have known that each element of a civil RICO claim existed--namely, that he was injured, that the defendant was the source of this injury, and that a pattern of activity prohibited by RICO caused this harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Forbes v. Eagleson
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.