Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 874 F.3d 806 - Bascuñán v. Elsaca

Bascuñán v. Elsaca’s Empirical Analysis

874 F.3d 806 · 2017

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
April 2024
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company

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

  1. “analogous to an injury to tangible property ... [meaning] property that can be fairly said to exist in a precise location.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “when a foreign plaintiff maintains tangible property in the United States, the misappropriation of that property constitutes a domestic injury.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “... [i]mportantly, the only domestic connections alleged here were acts of the defendant . Bascuñán and his relevant property always remained abroad, and these injuries did not arise from any preexisting connection between Bascuñán and the United States. To allow such a plaintiff to recover treble damages would thus "unjustifiably permit [foreign] citizens to bypass their own [nation's] less generous remedial scheme."”
    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.