76 F. Supp. 3d 999 - Frenzel v. Aliphcom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the court determines whether the relevant law of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions with regard to the particular issue in question is the same or different. Second, if there is a difference, the court examines each jurisdiction’s inter est in the application of its own law under the circumstances of the particular case to determine whether a true conflict exists. Third, if the court finds that there is a true conflict, it carefully evaluates and compares the nature and strength of the interest of each jurisdiction in the application of its own law to determine which state’s interest would be more impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of the other state, and then ultimately applies the law of the state whose interest would be more impaired if its law were not applied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Germinaro v. Fidelity National Title Insurance

2. “a plaintiff must identify 'the time, place, and content of [the] alleged misrepresentation[s],' as well as the 'circumstances indicating falseness' or 'manner in which the representations at issue were false and misleading.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Colgate v. Juul Labs, Inc.

3. “to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Colgate v. Juul Labs, Inc.