646 F. Supp. 2d 335 - KBL CORP. v. Arnouts’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 35 U.S.C. § 1 (American Inventors Protection Act of 1999)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Neitzke v. Williams · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. · Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union
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.
“plaintiff cannot use New York State common law as an end-around to make a claim for contribution that it could not make under the federal statutory scheme”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Discovery is unwarranted where it would function as a “fishing expedition for evidence in search of a theory that has yet to be asserted.” In re Alper Holdings, Inc., 398 B.R. 736, 754 (S.D.N.Y.2008). Indeed, allowing the plaintiff to conduct discovery in order to piece together a claim would undermine the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which is to “streamline[ ] litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and factfinding” where the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 , 109 S.Ct. 1827 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).”
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.