Sanders v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “frequently look to dictionaries to determine the plain meaning of words.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 702 F. Supp. 2d 999 - Lozano v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. · Cler v. Illinois Education Ass'n

2. “One of these ... types of statutes is the [EAJA], which permits parties that prevail against the government to obtain the costs of litigation, but only if the individual’s “net worth does not exceed $2,000,000.” 5 U.S.C. § 504 (b)(1)(B). In Continental Web Press Inc. v. N.L.R.B., we examined the term “net worth” in the context of this EAJA provision. 767 F.2d 321 , 323 (7th Cir.1985). There the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board] argued that in calculating net worth, Continental’s assets should be valued at cost rather than cost minus depreciation. We held that the proper valuation entails a depreciation of assets because that is the procedure prescribed by [GAAP]. Congress did not define the statutory term “net worth.” It seems a fair guess that if it had thought about the question, it would have wanted the courts to refer to [GAAP]. What other guideline could there be? Congress would not have wanted us to create a whole new set of accounting principles just for use in eases under the [EAJA]. Id. This holding is consistent with our prior holding in Telegraph Savings and Loan Association v. Schilling that GAAP should also be used to determine a bank’s net worth as that term is defined by federal banking statutes. 703 F.2d 1019 , 1027-28 (7th Cir.1983). Not surprisingly, when the Ninth Circuit was asked to define net worth for purposes of the EAJA, it also held that GAAP should govern. American Pac. Concrete Pipe Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 788 F.2d 586, 591 (9th Cir.1986) (adopt”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. C. Brewer & Co. v. Hawaii Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

3. “The key aspect of this net worth provision is not its punitive nature, ... but a recognition that an award of statutory punitive damages may exceed a company’s ability to pay and thereby force it into bankruptcy.... Thus, we agree with the Fifth Circuit that the primary purpose of the net worth provision is a protective one. It ensures that defendants are not forced to liquidate their companies in order to satisfy an award of punitive damages.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC