Weinstein v. Ebay, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Foman v. Davis · Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A. · Harris v. Mills
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he applicable legal standard is whether a reasonable consumer, not the least sophisticated consumer , would be misled by Defendants' actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]ellingly, Plaintiff does not allege that she personally believed she was purchasing tickets directly from the Yankees online box office or that she did not understand that Stubhub [a resale website] is an online marketplace for the resale of tickets by other fans”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“went to the Yankees website and followed a hyperlink to the StubHub website [and in] so doing, she left the Yankees website and was redirected to an entirely new website with a different URL”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.