Heit v. Van Ochten’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n this case, it seems apparent that Mr. Heit's ability to represent the class is wanting and inadequate. Mr. Heit's two written objections to the Proposed Settlement contain mostly the objections addressed in this Opinion. Mr. Heit's objections also make it clear that he absolutely opposes the Proposed Settlement. Yet, a thorough review of the Proposed Settlement by the Court indicates approval is appropriate and in the class's best interest. Having found Mr. Heit's ability to represent the class wanting and inadequate, the Court therefore grants Plaintiff's counsel's Motion to add Mr. Corsetti as the named Plaintiff.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nunez v. Bae Sys. San Diego Ship Repair Inc. · 472 F. Supp. 2d 922 - Olden v. LaFarge Corp.

2. “Recognizing Plaintiff counsel’s duty to the class, it appears she cannot represent [the class representative] because he objects to the Proposed Settlement, which Plaintiffs counsel argues is in the class’s interest. The Court also finds that the Proposed Settlement is in the class’s interest.... As such, the Court grants Plaintiff counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as [the class representative’s] counsel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 472 F. Supp. 2d 922 - Olden v. LaFarge Corp.