Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 126 F.3d 372 - Marisol v. Giuliani

Marisol v. Giuliani’s Empirical Analysis

126 F.3d 372 · 1997

Citation profile

363
cited by 363 later decisions
4
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 50 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 363 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad (2001), John Armstrong v. Gray Davis, Governor of the State of California (2001)

37 federal appellate · 50 district · 8 state decisions

16801997200020102020decided

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

Relies on Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Lombard v. Marcera · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Robidoux v. Celani

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

  1. “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
    22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The commonality requirement is met if plaintiffs' grievances share a common question of law or of fact.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.”
    6 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.