Focus Media Inc v. P’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 5 district ·

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

1. “(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). Alternatively, a court may grant the injunction if the plaintiff demonstrates either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. As we have said many times regarding the two alternative formulations of the preliminary injunction test: These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases. They are not separate tests but rather outer reaches of a single continuum.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Solidus Networks, Inc. v. Excel Innovations, Inc. · Crum v. Blixseth (In Re Big Springs Realty LLC)

2. “But even if I err in this conclusion [that in the name and address box on the proof of claim was the appointment of an agent], the record plainly establishes that [the law firm] was implicitly appointed as [creditor’s] agent for service of process. If the purported agent’s activities in the forum are substantial and involve the significant exercise of independent judgment and discretion, service on the agent is valid even in the absence of express authorization to accept process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jorgenson v. State Line Hotel, Inc. (In Re State Line Hotel, Inc.)

3. “[I]n an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, a lawyer can be deemed to be the client’s implied agent to receive service of process [under Rule 7004(b)(8) ] when the lawyer repeatedly represented that client in the underlying bankruptcy case, and where the totality of the circumstances demonstrates the intent of the client to convey such authority.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jorgenson v. State Line Hotel, Inc. (In Re State Line Hotel, Inc.)