Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 796 F.3d 1 - Hourani v. Mirtchev

Hourani v. Mirtchev’s Empirical Analysis

796 F.3d 1 · 2015

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
March 2022
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 10 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1602 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976)

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Baker v. Carr · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · United States v. Turkette

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. “the workaday tools for decision-making that courts routinely employ,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Starr Int'l Co. v. United States · Starr International Company v. United States
  2. “might implicate the actions of a foreign government”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Starr Int'l Co. v. United States · Starr International Company v. United States
  3. “(1) the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party; (3) the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence; and (4) either the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm, or its publication caused the plaintiff special harm.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
    e.g. Smith v. Clinton

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.