Integra Realty Resources Inc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 district · 8 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) “injury in fact,” by which we mean an invasion of a legally protected interest that is “(a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, by which we mean that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant,” and has not resulted “from the independent action of some third party not before the court”; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, by which we mean that the “prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling” is not “too speculative.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guardians v. United States Forest Service · City of Aurora Ex Rel. Aurora Water v. PS Systems, Inc.

2. “`Prejudice' means `plain legal prejudice,' as when `the settlement strips the party of a legal claim or cause of action.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 582 F. Supp. 2d 1313 - NEW MEXICO EX REL. STATE ENGINEER v. Aamodt · NEW ENGLAND HEALTH CARE EMP. PENSION v. Woodruff

3. “Fidelity’s purported conflicts did not render it inadequate to represent the class either at the beginning of the proceedings or at any later stage of the litigation. Although we recognize that Fidelity’s potential liability far exceeded that of any other class member, its interests were aligned with those of the other class members in that all concerned wished to limit their liability to the lowest possible amount. Moreover, Fidelity’s ownership of a large block of shares would have created a greater incentive to bring the per-share costs of settlement down to the lowest possible level. For similar reasons, although Fidelity had fiduciary duties to its shareholders in addition to its responsibilities to the class, we do not believe those duties were in conflict because Fidelity’s duty to each was vigorously to litigate the class issues and to reduce the class liability as much as possible. Likewise the settlement agreement’s provision for partial payment of Fidelity’s expenses in litigating the suit, while potentially troubling, does not in and of itself render Fidelity inadequate. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Fidelity remained an adequate representative notwithstanding that the settlement agreement created a pool to offset some of their litigation costs.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Weinman v. Fidelity Capital Appreciation Fund