Schlessinger v. Valspar Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
686 F.3d 81 · 2012
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · John E. Rosasco Creameries, Inc. v. Cohen · Broder v. Cablevision Systems Corp. · Edward Conboy Eileen Conboy v. At&t Corp At&t Universal Card Services Corp the Electronic Privacy Information Center · Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. May parties seek to have contractual provisions that run contrary to General Business Law § 395-a declared void as against public policy? 2. May plaintiffs bring suit pursuant to § 349 on the theory that defendants deceived them by including a contractual provision that violates § 395-a and later enforcing this agreement?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 395-a [of the N.Y. General Business Law] expressly provides that the Attorney General may bring suit against those who violate its mandate, so a private right of action would not be consistent with legislative intent.”
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.