Coneff v. AT & T Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

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

1. ““focused on a related but different concern [than nonredressability of injury] — even if the arbitration agreements guaranteed (via fee-shifting provisions) that complaining customers would be made whole with respect to damages and counsel fees, most customers would not bother filing claims because the amounts are too small to be worth the trouble.. . . That is, the concern is not so much that customers have no effective means to vindicate their rights, but rather that customers have insufficient incentive to do so. That concern is, of course, a primary policy rationale for class actions .... But as the Supreme Court stated in Concepcion, such unrelated policy concerns, however worthwhile, cannot undermine the FAA.” (Emphases in original.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re American Exp. Merchants'litigation · Feeney v. Dell Inc.

2. “[w]hen parties dispute choice of law... there must be an actual conflict between the laws or interests of Washington and the laws or interests of another state before Washington courts will engage in a conflict of laws analysis.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 358 F. Supp. 3d 1195 - Providence Health & Serv. v. Certain Underwriters

3. “class proceedings are necessary to prosecute small-dollar claims that might otherwise slip through the legal system,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re American Exp. Merchants'litigation