Biro v. Condé Nast’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “if the defendant provide[d] no source for the allegedly defamatory statements[,] if the purported source denies giving the information, [if] the allegedly defamatory statements were based wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call or were published despite obvious [specified] reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports or despite the inherently improbable nature of the statements themselves.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Resolute Forest Prods., Inc. v. Greenpeace Int'l

2. “on the ground that Biro, as a limited-purpose public figure, failed to plead sufficient facts to give rise to a plausible inference of actual malice. In doing so, the District Court relied on Iqbal’s instruction that, where a particular state of mind is an element of a claim, Rule 8 requires that it be plausibly pleaded and supported by factual allegations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harasz v. Katz

3. “A claim is plausible 'when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.)