Bishop v. Commodity Exchange, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “The deficiency of the original complaint was that it alleged only that the Governors had enacted the [challenged] rule in order to advance their own interests, an allegation which left open the possibility that the furtherance of their own interests was merely incidental to their attempt to advance the public interest. The amended complaint, on the other hand, clearly alleges that the Governors’ advancement of their own interests' was the dominant, not merely the incidental, motivation for their actions. Such an allegation adequately states a cause of action.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sam Wong & Son, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange · 742 F. Supp. 843 - Grossman v. Citrus Associates of New York Cotton Exchange, Inc.

2. “"The dominant and decisive motivation and intent of the defendants in enacting the Liquidation Only Rule and the dominant purpose and reason for the Liquidation Only Rule was to advance the defendants' individual and/or corporate self-interest and/or to derive direct personal gain, rather than to advance the public interest, all of which was in bad faith. By engaging in the aforementioned bad faith acts, the defendants acted inconsistent with, contrary to and in violation of their duty and responsibility to advance the public interest and to act with the utmost objectivity, impartiality, honesty and good faith."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 742 F. Supp. 843 - Grossman v. Citrus Associates of New York Cotton Exchange, Inc. · 742 F. Supp. 843 - Grossman v. CITRUS ASSOC. OF NY COTTON EXCHANGE