648 F. Supp. 2d 449 - CHANDOK v. Klessig’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · United States v. Diebold, Inc.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the statement averred was defamatory; (2) that the statement was published by the defendant; (3) that the statement was communicated to a party who was not the plaintiff; and (4) the resultant injury to the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Since publication of th[e Cell] paper, other members of the Klessig laboratory have been unable to repeat the results with recombinant variant P. In addition, other discrepancies have come to light that suggest data on the recombinant variant P presented in the Cell paper may have been fabricated by M.R. Chandok — hence the Cell paper is being retracted. .... For this reason and the fact that we are no longer confident in much of the data in this paper, we hereby retract Chandok et al., 2004. M.R. Chandok does not concur with this retraction.... The experiments that produced these data were performed by M.R. Chandok and are now suspect.... We deeply regret this incident and sincerely apologize to our colleagues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chandok v. Klessig“The defining aspect of a public application or petition, is that it is a required government process that must be satisfied to perform some other task. See Harfenes v. Sea Gate Assoc., Inc., 167 Misc.2d 647 , 647 N.Y.S.2d 329 , 331 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.County, 1995). Receipt of a grant may certainly assist in conducting research, but research can proceed without this specific grant.... [Requests for money, without other restrictions, are not public applications. Id. As there is no public application, there can neither be a public applicant nor a commentator to the same. Accordingly, there is no cause of action under the SLAPP statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chandok v. Klessig
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.