Seidel v. Kirby’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “The venue statute, however, does not authorize venue in any district where any events that gave rise to the action occurred, but rather where a substantial part of those actions occurred. Therefore, while it may not always be the case, the district in which a plaintiff resides is often going to be where the substantial part of the harmful publication occurred, i.e. where people are exposed to the material who may actually know the plaintiff or interact with him in a way that could be affected by the information.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fox, J. v. Smith, S.

2. “This rule, that an act of defamation "occurs" where it is publicized such that it may harm a plaintiff's reputation, is of little help when the publication is effectively world-wide. It would seem that, in the context of defamation publicized over the Internet, such a rule would make venue proper in any district in the United States.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fox, J. v. Smith, S.

3. “[t]he legally relevant 'occurrence' in a defamation action is where the publication occurred, i.e.[,] where third persons were exposed to the material that would tend to damage the plaintiff's reputation”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Serv. Women's Action Network v. Mattis