84 F. Supp. 3d 962 - Opperman v. Path, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the alleged content provider is not a creator of the challenged content, it must have done more than merely 'encourage[d] ' the creation of the challenged conduct; the alleged provider must have required another to create that content.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“saw or heard these partial representations and [was] misled by them in such a way that [the defendant] should have fully disclosed related information”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] partial-representation claim requires [a plaintiff] to plead reliance on at least some misleading partial representations”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.