Needbasedapps, LLC v. Robbins’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Van Dusen v. Barrack · Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co. · Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e need not definitively decide how this thorny issue should be resolved, because the choice-of-law principles of North Carolina and Arkansas are sufficiently similar that the outcome of this dispute would be the same under either set of rules.”). As explained below, it is unnecessary to reach this question because Georgia and New York law do not conflict on the substance of the allocation issue. See id. . Travelers and Fireman's Fund point out that their policies do not include the”
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.