Sotelo v. DIRECTREVENUE, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an allegation that the defendant infected the plaintiffs computer with spyware states an ICTA claim
• asserting that intrusion into a computer causing damage to the computer was sufficient to state a claim for trespass to chattels
• asserting that intrusion into a computer causing damage to the computer was sufficient to state a claim for trespass to chattels

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Van Tassell v. United Marketing Group, LLC
  N.D. Illinois· 2011-07-05· cited 53×
• Flentye v. Kathrein
  N.D. Illinois· 2007-04-18· cited 42×
• Smith v. City of Chicago
  N.D. Illinois· 2015-11-09· cited 30×
• Gary Friedrich Enterprises, LLC v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2010-05-03· cited 28×
• Halperin v. International Web Services, LLC
  N.D. Illinois· 2015-06-05· cited 23×
• In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation
  D. Kansas· 2015-09-11· cited 22×
• Zissu v. IH2 Property Illinois, L.P.
  N.D. Illinois· 2016-01-19· cited 17×
• Barnes v. Northwest Repossession, LLC
  N.D. Illinois· 2016-09-26· cited 16×
• Vazquez v. Central States Joint Board
  N.D. Illinois· 2008-02-29· cited 14×
• Dynamic Fluid Control (PTY) Ltd. v. International Valve Manufacturing, LLC
  N.D. Illinois· 2011-05-11· cited 14×
• Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. National Pediculosis Ass'n
  N.D. Illinois· 2007-11-30· cited 12×
• International Star Registry v. ABC Radio Network, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 2006-09-18· cited 12×
• Elward v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 2017-08-28· cited 12×
• Independent Trust Corp. v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. of New York
  N.D. Illinois· 2008-08-26· cited 11×
• Burgess v. Am. Express Co.
  North Carolina Business Court· 2007-05-21· cited 1×

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• International Shoe Co. v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1945-12-03· cited 18,588×
• Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
  Supreme Court· 1985-05-20· cited 12,253×
• World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
  Supreme Court· 1980-01-21· cited 8,668×
• Hanson v. Denckla
  Supreme Court· 1958-10-13· cited 7,025×
• At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers
  Supreme Court· 1986-04-07· cited 4,474×
• Gibson v. City of Chicago
  Seventh Circuit· 1990-08-23· cited 1,128×
• Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., Sanofi-Synthelabo, Incorporated, and Stwb, Incorporated
  Seventh Circuit· 2003-08-04· cited 723×
• Ward v. K Mart Corp.
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1990-04-18· cited 673×
• HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc.
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1989-09-27· cited 661×
• Emil J. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich) and Reishauer Corporation (Elgin)
  Seventh Circuit· 1992-01-15· cited 586×
• Hyatt International Corp. v. Gerardo Coco
  Seventh Circuit· 2002-09-03· cited 377×
• Ilah M. Tinder v. Pinkerton Security
  Seventh Circuit· 2002-09-17· cited 340×
• Rar, Incorporated, an Illinois Corporation v. Turner Diesel, Limited
  Seventh Circuit· 1997-03-03· cited 330×
• Intel Corp. v. Hamidi
  California Supreme Court· 2003-06-30· cited 284×
• James Carl Higgs v. William E. Carver and James M. Wolfe
  Seventh Circuit· 2002-04-01· cited 265×
• ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
  Seventh Circuit· 1996-06-20· cited 232×
• Fmc Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Victoria Varonos, Cross-Appellee v. Continental Illinois National Bank, Garnishee-Appellee
  Seventh Circuit· 1990-01-11· cited 118×
• James KONTOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, William Brock, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
  Seventh Circuit· 1987-08-05· cited 110×
• Scott Turnock v. Arthur Cope, James Jones and George Auchterloine
  Seventh Circuit· 1987-04-10· cited 105×
• Horwitz v. Holabird & Root
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2004-05-20· cited 104×