Feldman v. Google, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Hancock v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (2012), One Beacon Insurance v. Crowley Marine Services, Inc. (2011)
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“appears on an internet webpage and requires that a user consent to any terms and conditions by clicking on a dialog box on the screen in order to proceed with the internet transaction. Even though they are electronic, clickwrap agreements are considered to be writings because they are printable and storable. To determine whether a clickwrap agreement is enforceable, courts presented with the issue apply traditional principles of contract law and focus on whether the plaintiffs had reasonable notice of and manifested assent to the clickwrap agreement....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiff had to have had reasonable notice of the terms. By clicking on "Yes, I agree to the above terms and conditions” button, Plaintiff indicated assent to the terms. Therefore, the requirements of an express contract for reasonable notice of terms and mutual assent are satisfied. Plaintiff’s failure to read the Agreement, if that were the case, does not excuse him from being boiind by his express agreement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to submit information regarding the clickwrap agreement and the manner into which it was entered.” Id. Feldman lends support to the Court's determination herein to defer ruling on defendants' motion on the merits until after the parties are able to identify evidence relevant to the considerations set forth in Discover Bank . . Defendants do not specify when Yahoo! acquired Overture. Plaintiffs state in their opposition, however, that Yahoo! acquired Overture in”
1 later decision 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.