Weeks v. Bareco Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
125 F.2d 84 · 1941
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 15 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably 67 Cal. 2d 695 - Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967), Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin (1968)
67 federal appellate · 15 district · 22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Hansberry v. Lee · Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp. · United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co · McArthur v. Scott · Fleitmann ex rel. Stockholders of the Consolidated Street Lighting Co. v. Welsbach Street Lighting 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to permit the defendant to contest liability with each claimant in a single separate suit would, in many cases, give defendants an advantage which would almost be equivalent to closing the door of justice to small claimants. This is what we think the class suit practice was to prevent.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) REPRESENTATION. If persons constituting a class are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, such of them, one or more, as will fairly insure the adequate representation of all may, on behalf of all, sue or be sued, when the character of the right sought to be enforced for or against the class is * * *”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Moore, in his treatise on Federal Practice Under the New Rules, gives an excellent discussion of the “Spurious Class Suit” * * * He says: “ ‘This is a permissive joinder device. The presence of numerous persons interested in a common question of law or fact warrants its use by persons desiring to clean up a litigious situation. Assume that a railroad negligently sets fire to property, and widespread damage to many property owners ensues. Here there is a question of law or fact common to many persons. A, B, and C bring an action on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, against the railroad. * * * The judgment would bind A, B, and C and privies, the railroad, and all who intervened, but would not bind others beyond the principle of stare decisis, which operates as to all judgments.’ ””
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.