Juárez v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 34 district · 1 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'(1) that the statement was knowingly false; (2) that [defendant] made the false statement with the intent to deceive; (3) that the statement was material to the plaintiff['s] decision ...; (4) that the plaintiff[ ] reasonably relied on the statement; and (5) that the plaintiff[ ] w[as] injured as a result of [his] reliance.' Of course, the complaint must also pass muster under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), which imposes a so-called particularity requirement. A complaint must, therefore, include specifics about "the time, place, and content of the alleged false representations.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holland v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · 369 F. Supp. 3d 318 - Thout v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.

2. “separate[s] the factual allegations from the conclusory statements in order to analyze whether the former, if taken as true, set forth a plausible, not merely conceivable, case for relief.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Castagnaro v. Bank of NY · Sykes v. RBS Citizens

3. “If the facts alleged in [the complaint] allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged, the claim has facial plausibility.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Castagnaro v. Bank of NY · Sykes v. RBS Citizens