378 F. Supp. 2d 1070 - Schuster v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “Rule 9(b) requires that “[i]n all aver-ments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” “ ‘Circumstances’ include such matters as the time, place and content of false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what was obtained or given up thereby.” Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1062 (8th Cir.1982), adhered to on reh’g, 710 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008 , 104 S.Ct. 527 , 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983). Because one of the main purposes of the rule is to facilitate a defendant’s ability to respond and to prepare a defense to charges of fraud, Greenwood v. Dittmer, 776 F.2d 785, 789 (8th Cir.1985), conclusory allegations that a defendant’s conduct was fraudulent and deceptive are not sufficient to satisfy the rule. In re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig., 593 F.Supp. 612, 620 (D.Minn.1984).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kuiper v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. · 453 F. Supp. 2d 1058 - Remmes v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.

2. “I. Schuster’s professional negligence claim against defendants Anderson, F.H. Anderson Company, P.C. and F.H. Anderson Company; II. Schuster’s breach of fiduciary duty claim against Anderson, F.H. Anderson Company, P.C. and F.H. Anderson Company; III. Schuster and Schlichte’s breach of fiduciary duty claim against Cleverin-ga and ASB; IV. Schuster’s claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against Anderson, F.H. Anderson Company, P.C. and F.H. Anderson Company; V. Schuster’s fraudulent nondisclosure claim against Anderson, F.H. Anderson Company, P.C. and F.H. Anderson Company; VI. Schuster and Schlichte’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Cleveringa and ASB; VII. Schuster and Schlichte’s fraudulent nondisclosure claim against Cleveringa and ASB; VIII. Schuster’s claim for negligent misrepresentation against Anderson, F.H. Anderson Company, P.C. and F.H. Anderson Company; IX. Schuster and Schlichte’s negligent misrepresentation claim against Cleveringa and ASB; X. Schuster and Schlichte’s claim for fraud in the inducement based on fraudulent misrepresentation by ASB; XI. Schuster and Schlichte’s claim for fraud in the inducement based on fraudulent nondisclosure by ASB; XII. Schuster and Schlichte’s claim of an 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (b)-Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) violation by Anderson, F.H. Anderson Company, P.C., F.H. Anderson Company, Cleveringa and ASB; XIII. Schuster and Schlichte’s claim of an 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c)-RICO violation by Ander”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 413 F. Supp. 2d 983 - Schuster v. Anderson

3. “Whether a court has supplemental jurisdiction is determined by the following test: “ ‘a federal court has jurisdiction over an entire action, including state-law claims, wherever the federal-law and state law claims in the case ‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact’ and are ‘such that [a plaintiff] would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.”” Kansas Public Employees Retirement Sys. v. Reimer & Koger, Assoc., Inc., 77 F.3d 1063 , 1067 (8th Cir.1996) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 349 , 108 S.Ct. 614 , 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988), in turn quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725-26 , 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138-39 , 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966)); see Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 973 (8th Cir.1999) (“A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the plaintiffs federal claims and when the plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try all the claims in one judicial proceeding.”) (citing Kansas Public Employees Retirement Sys.); Meyers v. Trinity Med. Ctr., 983 F.2d 905 , 907 (8th Cir.1993); Alumax Mill Prods., Inc. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 912 F.2d 996 , 1005 (8th Cir.1990); Appelbaum v. Ceres Land Co., 687 F.2d 261, 262-63 (8th Cir.1982); Wrist-Rocket Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Saunders Archery Co., 578 F.2d 727, 734-35 (8th Cir.1978). In sum, supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a), is appropriate where the federal-la”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 442 F. Supp. 2d 685 - Heimlicher Ex Rel. Estate of Heimlicher v. Steele