731 F. Supp. 2d 103 - Fernandes v. Havkin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 district ·

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

1. “This “statutory notice requirement is not merely a procedural nicety, but, rather ‘a prerequisite to suit.’ ” Rodi v. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 19 (1st Cir.2004); see Entrialgo v. Twin City Dodge, Inc., 368 Mass. 812 , 333 N.E.2d 202, 204 (1975) (“demand letter listing the specific deceptive practices claimed is a prerequisite to suit and as a special element must be alleged and proved”).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lacey v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (In re Lacey) · Sheedy v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (In re Sheedy)

2. ““In the context of ordinary negligence claims in tort actions, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that ‘purely economic losses are unrecoverable ... in the absence of personal injury or property damage.’ ” Cummings v. HPG Int’l, Inc., 244 F.3d 16, 24 (1st Cir.2001). There has been discussion in Massachusetts courts regarding whether the doctrine applies to negligent misrepresentation. If applied to a negligent misrepresentation claim with only an economic injury, “even if a duty existed, the claim is barred by the economic loss doctrine which provides that, in negligence actions, ‘purely economic losses are unrecoverable ... in the absence of personal or property damage.’ ” Corcoran v. Saxon Mortgage Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 2106179 , (quoting FMR Corp. v. Boston Edison Co., 415 Mass. 393 , 613 N.E.2d 902, 903 (1993)); compare with Danca v. Taunton Sav. Bank, 385 Mass. 1 , 429 N.E.2d 1129, 1134 (1982) (the economic loss doctrine does not apply to negligent misrepresentation). By applying the economic loss doctrine, the Corcoran court rejected a negligent misrepresentation claim because the “alleged damages, the additional costs and interest accrued on the loan, are purely economic in nature.” Corcoran v. Saxon Mortgage Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 2106179 at ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lacey v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (In re Lacey)

3. “prohibits a claim for unjust enrichment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tomasella v. The Hershey Co.