198 F. Supp. 2d 578 - Greenberg v. Chrust’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “The allegations in the complaint regarding Chrust’s misrepresentation of his employment background and business acumen (i.e. that he resigned his position at Winstar, that he successfully aided small companies, and that he managed a successful hedge fund) satisfy the requirements for a fraud claim. Green-berg has alleged that such representations were false and known to be false when made; that they were made to induce Greenberg to contribute his shares back to the company; and that Greenberg relied on these representations and was injured as a result. ^ # # ❖ # Greenberg has with sufficient particularity, specified the statements made by defendant which were fraudulent, identified who made the statements, when they were made (to plaintiff and others on various occasions prior to defendant’s retention as chairman of the board) and why they were fraudulent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 282 F. Supp. 2d 112 - Greenberg v. Chrust · 297 F. Supp. 2d 699 - Greenberg v. Chrust

2. “(1) the defendant had a duty, as a result of a special relationship, to give correct information; (2) the defendant made a false representation that he or she should have known was incorrect; (3) the information supplied in the representation was known by the defendant to be desired by the plaintiff for a serious purpose; (4) the plaintiff intended to rely and act upon it; and (5) the plaintiff reasonably relied on it to his or her detriment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. EED HOLDINGS v. Palmer Johnson Acquisition Corp. · 659 F. Supp. 2d 332 - Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc. v. Astrocosmos Metallurgical, Inc.