John Pochiro and Karen Pochiro, Husband and Wife v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.2d 1246 · 1987
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Pegasus Gold Corporation v. J (2005), Roe v. O'Donohue (1994)
32 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Lombard v. Marcera · American Sterilizer Co. v. Sybron Corp. · Lyon v. California
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A pleading shall state as a [compulsory] counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim....”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'This flexible approach to Rule 13 problems attempts to analyze whether the essential facts of the various claims are so logically connected that considerations of judicial economy and fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In its state court action, Prudential pleaded causes of action for breach of employment contract, unfair competition, and intentional interference with business relations. The operative facts underlying these causes of action were that John Pochiro, when employed by Prudential as an agent, was given confidential records about Prudential’s present and prospective policyholders. Then, after resigning from Prudential, Pochiro failed to return the records to Prudential and instead used them in soliciting business in competition with Prudential. Prudential argues that the operative facts underlying the Pochiros’ action also revolve around the Pochiros’ use of these same confidential records. We agree. Although the Pochiros’ complaint is rather jumbled, their causes of action for unlawful restraint of trade, unfair business practices, intentional interference with contractual advantage, defamation, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tor-tious breach of employment contract are bottomed on a single paragraph of factual allegations, which we quote in full: Commencing in December, 1982 and January-February, 1983, Prudential deliberately, maliciously, willfully and/or with gross, wanton and negligent conduct set about to substantially damage John’s reputation, credibility and business; that Prudential’s wrongful conduct included it doing the following acts: (1) Prudential told John’s employees and/or prospective employees that John was a crook, and/or wa”
2 later decisions 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.