Niemi v. Lasshofer’s Empirical Analysis
728 F.3d 1252 · 2013
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · State v. Simpson
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“risks leaving opponents with no opportunity (at least if they abide by the rules of appellate procedure) for a proper response; it risks an improvident opinion from this court by tasking us with the job of issuing an opinion without the full benefits of the adversarial process; and it invites an unsavory degree of tactical sandbagging by litigants in future cases: why bother pursuing a potentially winning issue at the outset when you can wait to introduce it at the last second and leave your opponent without a chance to respond?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“This isn’t to suggest the statutory standing problem is insurmountable — or even close to it. Though standing isn’t apparent in the transcript the plaintiffs recently supplied or the record they prepared for our review on appeal, perhaps on remand the plaintiffs can muster credible evidence that an assignment occurred before the lawsuit began.... Perhaps they can establish some direct and personal injury. Some other possible factual or legal angle might appear.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Niemi v. Lasshofer“[W]e generally refuse to consider any ... new issue introduced for the first time in a reply brief, let alone in a Rule 28(j) letter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.