374 N.J. Super. 475 - Donato v. Moldow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 25 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted must be evaluated in light of the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 379 N.J. Super. 100 - Sickles v. Cabot Corp. · 422 N.J. Super. 38 - Kieffer v. HIGH POINT INS. CO.

2. “Whether wisely or not, [Congress] made the legislative judgment to effectively immunize providers of interactive computer services from civil liability in tort with respect to material disseminated by them but created by others. In recognition of the speed with which information may be disseminated and the near impossibility of regulating information content, Congress decided not to treat providers of interactive computer services like other information providers such as newspapers, magazines or television and radio stations, all of which may be held liable for publishing or distributing obscene or defamatory material written or prepared by others. While Congress could have made a different policy choice, it opted not to hold interactive computer services liable for their failure to edit, withhold or restrict access to offensive material disseminated through their medium. [ Id. at 492, 865 A. 2d 711 (citing Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44, 49 (D.D.C.1998)).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 419 N.J. Super. 305 - Milgram v. ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC.

3. ““(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or “(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph [(A)].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 40 Cal. 4th 33 - Barrett v. Rosenthal