Crosby v. Twitter, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.3d 617 · 2019
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2331 (Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition Enhancement Act of 2004) · 18 U.S.C. § 2333 (Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (§ 120005 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (§ 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230) · 8 U.S.C. § 1189 (§ 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation · Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“boasts hundreds of millions of users ... with over 500 million tweets per day ... [or] 6,000 tweets per second”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“third parties upload 300 hours of content to YouTube every minute”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.