531 F. Supp. 2d 552 - Ello v. Singh’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1954 · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 664 (Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson · Foman v. Davis · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Mertens v. Hewitt Associates
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Simply reciting the elements of claim in a complaint, as Plaintiff has done here, is not sufficient to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”). 12 . Plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 6972 (a)(1)(B) against Defendant Grannis is dismissed for the alternative reason that he is not the”
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.