Nelson v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 9 district ·

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

1. “[Practical difficulties in application will arise not in the majority of cases, but only in those particular narrow instances where (1) both state and federal claims are asserted in a single action, (2) the state provides a settlement bar statute, and (3) the state statute and the federal rule vary significantly.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 751 F. Supp. 279 - MFS Municipal Income Trust v. American Medical International, Inc. · 958 F. Supp. 1472 - Slaven v. BP America, Inc.

2. “Contribution and Indemnity.” It asserts that if the plaintiffs are correct in their assertion that Deloitte is not entitled to contribution (as provided by the settlement agreement) because it is not jointly and severally liable with Blank, Rome, the claim is not truly one for contribution and should not be dismissed. If Deloitte is found liable to plaintiffs but not jointly and severally liable with Blank, Rome, however, then Deloitte has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, as implied indemnity would not be available under those circumstances. See Section 11(B)(3). I conclude that insofar as Deloitte’s claims are labelled contribution they should be dismissed. 10 . I note that in an earlier decision in this case, in which I approved the settlement between Blank, Rome and the plaintiffs, I agreed with all of the parties that a uniform federal rule was desirable in forming a settlement bar rule. My reasoning was based on the fact that the rule adopted would "affect 'key substantive rights of the defendants under the securities laws;’ adoption of existing state statutes would produce disparate results and would 'thwart the overall federal regulatory scheme,’ and adoption of state law would encourage forum shopping and spawn wasteful litigation over the applicable state law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Sunrise Securities Litigation

3. “[especially in these days of burgeoning federal litigation, the promotion of settlement is, as a practical matter, an absolute necessity. Otherwise, the already congested federal dockets would be bound in a hopeless gridlock. Moreover, settlements, even partial settlements such as the one presently contemplated, serve valuable purposes other than judicial economy. Plaintiffs who otherwise might have to wait for many years are assured some immediate compensation; the settling defendants are able to free themselves from litigation and pursue more productive matters; and the scarce societal resources which might be consumed by increasingly expensive litigation can be put to other redeeming uses.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 409 F. Supp. 2d 136 - Agway, Inc. Employees' 401(K) Thrift Investment Plan v. Magnuson