Robert Scardelletti’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 1 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The reason for my issuance of the injunction is that Robert Devlin has, by his pattern of conduct, demonstrated that unless he is enjoined, he will institute litigation in other districts to undermine the class action settlement this court has approved (a ruling that has been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit). This pattern is evidenced by other cases that Devlin filed both before and after the settlement agreement was approved while this action was pending. After [the court] ordered rescission of the 1991 COLA, Devlin filed two actions in the Southern District of New York, seeking a preliminary injunction to restore the COLA.... Thereafter, Devlin sought to amend his complaint in the New York actions to reassert the same COLA claims previously raised and rejected. ... Notwithstanding my approval of the settlement agreement, while the approval was pending, Devlin instituted another action in the Southern District of New York alleging that the prosecution of the present suit by the Trustees was a breach of their fiduciary duties and that the settlement of this litigation was the product of collusion. Self-evidently, the institution of that action constituted an attack upon my approval of the settlement agreement and was an attempt to circumvent the jurisdiction not only of this court but also of the Fourth Circuit in which the appeal of my rulings was to be heard. It was against the background of these lawsuits that on March 15, 2000, I entered an injunction requiring Devlin to d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scardelletti v. Rinckwitz

2. “Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action ... when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. When a party to an action relies for ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive order administered by a federal or state governmental officer or agency or upon any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made pursuant to the statute or executive order, the officer or agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene in the action. In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United Wisconsin Services, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.