Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) in the exceptional case in which review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, (2) when a new issue arises while appeal is pending because of a change in the law, and, (3) when the issue presented is purely one of law and either does not depend on the factual record developed below, or the pertinent record has been fully developed.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pickup v. Brown · Armstrong v. Brown

2. “Control and Exclusive Use .... The parties intend to create an independent contractor relationship and not an employer-employee relationship. (Trial Ex. 77, at ¶ 9(ITA)) Independent Contractor (a) Contractor, in the performance of this Agreement, will be acting in his own separate capacity and not as an agent, employee, partner, joint venture or associate of Affinity. It is expressly understood and agreed that Contractor is an independent contractor of Affinity in all manners and respects and that Contractor is not authorized to bind Affinity to any liability or obligation or to represent that it has any such authority. (Trial Ex. 78, at ¶ 2(ELA))”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 887 F. Supp. 2d 1034 - Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.

3. “If there is no such conflict, the court shall enforce the parties’ choice of law. If, however, there is a fundamental conflict with California law, the court must then determine whether California has a “materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue.... ” Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187(2). If California has a materially greater interest than the chosen state, the choice of law shall not be enforced, for the obvious reason that in such circumstance we will decline to enforce a law contrary to this state’s fundamental policy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stryker Sales Corp. v. Zimmer Biomet, Inc.