Registration Control Systems, Inc. v. Compusystems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “[t]he purpose of the particularity requirement in Rule 7 is to afford notice of the grounds and prayer of the motion to both the court and to the opposing party, providing that party with a meaningful opportunity to respond and the court with enough information to process the motion correctly. Wright and Miller state that the issue is whether any party is prejudiced by a lack of particularity or 'whether the court can comprehend the basis for the motion and deal with it fairly.' 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1192, 42 (1990).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Floyd Strain v. Payette School District No. 371j Warren E. McCain Middle School Richard Dillon · 210 F. Supp. 2d 1078 - Andreas v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

2. “state with particularity the grounds therefor.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York · Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc.

3. “recognition of the peculiar circumstances of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc.