Krottner v. Starbucks Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.3d 1139 · 2010
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · Doe v. Chao Secretary of Labor
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if no laptop had been stolen, and [they] had sued based on the risk that it would be stolen at some point in the future.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) it has suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Starbucks sent a letter to ... affected employees alerting them to the theft and stating that Starbucks had no indication that the private information ha[d] been misused,”
2 later decisions 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.