Kudon v. f.m.e. Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions

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

1. “(1) whether the party requesting the fees was responsible for precipitating the litigation . . . ; (2) whether the litigation for which the party relying on the contract provision recovers the fees was bona fide and made necessary by the party opposing payment of such fees . . . ; (3) whether the claim asserted by the party opposing payment of such fees was raised by way of offset in an attempt to reduce or extinguish the debt owed to the party requesting the fees . . . ; and (4) whether it was necessary for the party requesting the fees to defend against the claim of the party opposing the fees in order to collect the underlying debt or enforce the underlying contractual obligation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wright v. Doolin

2. “(1) whether the party requesting the fees was responsible for precipitating the litigation; (2) whether the litigation for which the party relying on the contract provision recovers the fees was bona fide and made necessary by the party opposing payment of such fees; (3) whether the claim asserted by the party opposing payment of such fees was raised by way of offset in an attempt to reduce or extinguish the debt owed to the party requesting fees; and (4) whether it was necessary for the party requesting the fees to defend against the claim of the party opposing the fees in order to collect the underlying contractual obligation”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. General Electric Co. v. Latin American Imports, S.A.

3. “[wjhile historically the [Seventh] [Ajmendment was intended “to preserve the right to jury trial as it existed in 1791,” Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 193 , 94 S.Ct. 1005, 1008 , 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974), the guarantees afforded have been interpreted to encompass “... not merely suits, which the common law recognized among its old and settled proceedings, but suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered-” Id. (quoting Porsons v. Bedford, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 433, 446-47 , 7 L.Ed. 732 (1830)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ginberg v. Tauber