Boulevard Associates v. Sovereign Hotels, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
72 F.3d 1029 · 1995
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 38 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Teleglobe USA Inc. v. BCE Inc. (2007), Fabri v. United Technologies International, Inc. (2004)
10 federal appellate · 38 district · 23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Alder v. United States · Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. · Bundrick v. United States · Blake v. Levy · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Canaan Oil Co.
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“simple breach of contract does not offend traditional notions of fairness, and . . . standing alone does not offend public policy to invoke CUTPA.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] simple contract breach is not sufficient to establish a violation CUTPA, particularly where the count alleging CUTPA simply incorporates by reference the breach of contract claim and does not set forth how or in what respect the defendant’s activities are either immoral, unethical, unscrupulous or offensive to public policy.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [Wjhether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise—whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers [ (competitors or other businessmen) ].”
3 later decisions 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.