Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Communications Co.’s Empirical Analysis
377 F.3d 1081 · 2004
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Gardner v. Martino (2009), Mark H. ex rel. Michelle H. v. Lemahieu (2008)
14 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hanna v. Plumer · Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc. · Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall · At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board · Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc.
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.
“[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[G]ranting a defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a plaintiff's initial complaint without granting the plaintiff leave to amend would directly collide with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)'s policy favoring liberal amendment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The filed rate doctrine is motivated by two “companion principles” (1) preventing carriers from engaging in price discrimination as between ratepayers (the “nondiscrimination strand”) and (2) pre serving the exclusive role of federal agencies in approving rates for telecommunications services that are “reasonable” by keeping courts out of the rate-making process (the “nonjusticiability strand”), a function that the federal regulatory agencies are more competent to perform.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.