IIT v. Vencap, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.2d 1001 · 1975
Citation profile
101 federal appellate · 18 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 267 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (2010)
101 federal appellate · 18 district ·
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · Langnes v. Green · Lynch v. Household Finance Corp.
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 267 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“this basis of jurisdiction is limited to the perpetration of fraudulent acts themselves and does not extend to mere preparatory activities or the failure to prevent fraudulent acts where the bulk of the activity was performed in foreign countries . . . .”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to allow the United States to be used as a base for manufacturing fraudulent security devices for export, even when these are peddled only to foreigners.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a kind of legal Lohengrin . . . no one seems to know whence it came”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain · Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited, Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited
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.